Stop me if you've heard this before.
After looking sluggish on offense for large portions of the game, the Hokies seemed to finally come alive in the second half. They managed to take the lead before a late defensive breakdown sealed a win for a road team in Lane Stadium.
If it sounds awful familiar to the ECU loss and the Georgia Tech loss, it should.
If it seems like an offensive line meltdown and a complete lack of any kind of running game hamstrung the offense, that should also probably feel pretty expected.
Quarterback Michael Brewer was pummeled, and the defense broke down with some very costly missed tackles and missed assignments despite flashes of brilliance. It would seem the Hokies are determined to mimic a broken record this season.
"I'm proud of our football team, I'm proud of how hard this team's played," said Frank Beamer after the game.
That should sound pretty similar to the last two press conferences Beamer's held as well.
This most recent 33-31 loss to the Boston College Eagles might've been different than the team's last two outings against Pittsburgh and Miami, but is it much better that it resembled the ineptitude of the team's previous September struggles?
"I'm frustrated, there's no hiding it," said center David Wang.
Yet just because this loss wasn't unprecedented, that doesn't make the circumstances any less heartbreaking.
Down 23-10 at the start of the fourth quarter, and with the offense going completely dormant after halftime, there was little reason to expect anything to change.
Fans started pouring out of the stands, and with the Hokies putting up a grand total of 28 yards in third quarter, they had good reason to believe the team had no chance of overcoming a double digit deficit.
But on fourth-and-nine, Beamer rolled the dice, calling for a fake punt that sent whip linebacker Derek DiNardo streaking down the east sideline for a 30-yard gain (which in one fell swoop made him the team's second leading rusher).
"I had no idea walking to the sideline, then I see DiNardo go 54 yards or whatever, and I was excited to come back in," said guard Wyatt Teller.
The Hokies would score six plays later, with fullback Sam Rogers pushing Brewer into the end zone to bring Tech within 23-17.
It's hard to see any of that happen without Beamer taking the risk on fourth down.
"I always love taking a chance like that. Just showing he has confidence in us," Rogers said. "We needed a momentum shifter right there and we got it, DiNardo did a great job making a play."
The defense forced a quick three and out, giving the Hokies the ball back a little over a minute later.
The team made some progress, getting to BC's 25 yard line, yet they faced fourth down once again. After briefly trying to draw the Eagles offside, they snapped the ball and Brewer floated a pass to Rogers for a 17-yard gain.
"We needed a spark there, we needed something," Beamer said.
Once again, three plays later, Brewer found Bucky Hodges in the end zone to give the team the lead, 24-23.
But after the debacles late in the Georgia Tech and ECU games, the Hokies knew the offense needed more.
"When we scored that touchdown, I knew it wasn't going to be enough," Wang said. "When I got back to the sideline, I said 'we've got to keep going. The moment's on our side, the fans are with us right now' and the coaches told us the same thing. The defense is going to play ball and we're going to move the ball and score."
Wang was absolutely right on one account; the lead would not hold. A 25-yard pass from Eagles quarterback Tyler Murphy to Josh Bordner helped BC get in good field position and kick a 44-yard field goal to put them up 26-24.
The Hokies made little progress on offense on the ensuing drive, and faced a fourth down on their 30. This time, Beamer wasn't ready to be daring.
"We had two timeouts, we were going to get the ball back if we held them," Beamer said. "We would have over two minutes. The problem was we didn't get a great punt, so that hurt us."
A.J. Hughes could only manage a 27-yard kick, giving the Eagles the ball on their 43 yard line and setting up BC to break the Hokies' hearts once more.
Murphy kept the ball on a draw, and confusion on the defense let him scamper 57 yards for what would be the game-sealing score.
"We had some big plays for us and the big plays killed us," said defensive coordinator Bud Foster.
It was eerily reminiscent of the way Justin Thomas and Chad Voytik gashed the defense for big gains on otherwise solid days for the unit.
Beamer says when they know it's coming, they need to be ready.
"We had a guy on that slot (receiver) and the slot folded a run and that guy's got to make the play," Beamer said. "I think when we see it, the kid's a good runner, but we should be ready for it."
Andrew Motuapuaka, who mostly had a very good day in relief of Chase Williams, knows he was that man on the slot.
"That was probably my fault. The slot came across and I spilled and I should've two-gapped him," Motuapuaka said. "I had no help outside of me, so he just took it the distance. If I'd have two gapped him, we would've stopped him right there."
The team still drove down to score another touchdown and make the game interesting, but a half-hearted onside kick attempt failed, and the game concluded.
Once more, Foster is left scratching his head. His defense put up three sacks and a whopping nine tackles for loss. They held BC to 258 yards on the ground, 19 yards less than their season average. But a few key mistakes once again killed a team that can't afford them.
"In this day and age in football, you can't be three out of four or eight out of 10," Foster said. "You've got to be exact all the time because every play is critical."
But he can't bear the brunt of the blame. Once more, the offense looked listless for long stretches of time, even if there were more bright spots than there were against Miami or Pittsburgh.
The offense was able to score on its first drive of the game, a 95-yard masterpiece that started with them pinned inside their own five yard line.
But the team could never replicate that kind of success in the shadow of their own goalposts.
They were pinned on the five on one other occasion and on the one two other times, which only served to further throw off a floundering offense.
"We had too many start out on the one yard line," Beamer said. (BC punter Alex Howell) did a nice job kicking the ball, we tried to put some heat on him to make him rush his kicks a little bit and get him out of the seat, but they did a good job. That's an unusual deal, that's a tough place to start."
While the team did avoid disaster in those situations, they also weren't exactly conducive to getting the unit in rhythm.
"The field position makes it tough," Brewer said. "Obviously you want to be better in situations like that, get some push and get it out of there, but at the same time you've got to be somewhat conservative down there and get it far enough out that you can throw it, especially against a team that can rush the passer like BC does."
No one knows about how troublesome the Eagles' pass rush was better than Brewer. He was absolutely abused on the day, getting sacked three times and hit on four more incidents that were recorded, yet that number seems low for the punishment he took.
Right tackle Jonathan McLaughlin went out with an ankle sprain, forcing recently converted DT Wade Hansen into the starting lineup, and the line struggled to adapt from there.
"I wouldn't say it's confusion, they just had a great scheme coming into it," Wang said. "We studied it as much as we could, we spent hours and hours in the film room, but on the field if something doesn't go right, you've got to adjust to it, and we adjusted to it late in the game but we should've come out faster."
But even after all that head-scratching, and all that frustration over units of the squad that have been disappointing for weeks now, this team still could've won this football game, had Joey Slye's field goal attempt not been blocked at the end of the half.
As just a 30-yard try, it seemed odd for a kicker with a leg like Slye. But Beamer suspects that McLaughlin getting hurt forced the protection unit to shuffle things around as well, causing some confusion.
"(McLaughlin's) replacement is in there...and they came right between the replacement and the next guy over," Beamer said. "They just got penetration and got a hand on the ball."
Now, the team is looking at having to win two of its three final games just to go to a bowl.
Somehow this squad will have to overcome its many flaws to beat a very solid Duke team on the road, or manage to close the season with two straight wins over equally flawed opponents in Wake Forest and UVa.
All they have to fall back on at this point is the fight that they exhibited in the game's closing moments.
"It sucks losing. It's never fun losing. I'm never going to be excited about a loss. But I am excited about this team and how hard we played," Rogers said.
But once again, in what is coming to define the 2014 season, it wasn't enough.
Comments
I would like to preface by saying I believe the ST and Defense lost the game for us here, not the offense. Big plays were given up and a terrible kick return fumble/blocked FG sealed our fate for us.
That said, does anyone else have a feeling that Beamer is the one hindering the team's offense more than Loefller is?
Be warned: I'm about to spout a lot of speculation, so if that's not your cup of tea stay away.
It's always been Beamer's style to run the ball first and run it hard. Today, it was evident coming out of the first half that wasn't working. However, on the start of the 2nd half we continued doing it until we stopped late in the third quarter.
However, once we got the fake punt on, the offense started clicking. This has seemed to be the case for the last 4-5 games. The offense struggles for 2/3 of the game and then gets it's plan together later, almost as if 2 different people are running the game. I feel like Beamer runs the game for 2/3 of the time trying to stick to his traditional playcalling and handcuffing Loefller to a specific set of plays.
However, when all looks lost or we are desperate, we seem to get something going. It's like Loefller is finally getting free reign and is allowed to use his whole playbook.
A lot of people have mentioned that moment Shane Beamer went to Loefller and changed the gameplan to a running game in the 2nd half against WMU. I feel like we've been stuck in Beamer's gameplan ever since, only allowing Loefller to do his thing when we're almost finished.
It's just an observation I'm having. Loefller has definitely not helped, but I don't think all of the offensive struggles is on him.
the offense seems to operate better in the hurry up passing game, at least with it's current personnel.. but it's pure speculation on who is making the call on when to run it/not run it
Edit, as for Shane Beamer going to Lefty about running the ball - I think that has been taken out of context by several people... as I understand it, several coaches had a meeting about trying to establish a running game, and Shane went up to Lefty afterwards and basically said that the RBs would deliver
You posted what I was considering posting. Despite long lulls for the offense because we tried to run on the #8 run defense in the country, the offense did not lose this game. No turnovers and over 400 yards from the offense should win any game in the ACC. The running game wasn't there, but Brewer had some very pretty passes (and a couple of headscratchers).
The defense gave up to many big plays again and again. I know our injuries have hamstrung the defense, but Bud needs to adjust the defense to the players he has not the players he wants. His overly aggressive nature has cause us several games this year. This is probably the only game where it was the main cause of the loss.
As for special teams, I think it might be time to hire a special teams coach Frank. Our returners have consistently put us in trouble on kick returns taking the ball out of the end zone again and again. I can only remember two returns where they have managed to make it past the 25 yard line. That is pathetic.
The fumble today hurt, and would have been a lot better off if he had just fallen on it at the 10.
As for blocking kicks, Tech has had many more kicks blocked in the last 5 years than we have blocked.
That said, I was there until the clock ran out and will continue to be. I cheered for the players that were doing there best and never gave up and I will continue to cheer. Go Hokies.
Also on special teams...Tell the kick off returners to take a knee in the end zone...take the free 25? yards instead of running for only 19
Amen. I would love to see someone break a long one, but i am more sick of crappy starting field position.
Exactly. How is the world does our coaching staff allow this to continue? Seriously; an average starting field position of 10-15 yard line vs. 25 yard line. With our offense this year, we have had numerous 3 and outs where we didn't even gain those additional 10 yards. If our returns had been improving, I would be all for the return. However, it is completely obvious that they are not.
You know, it took me until this morning to realize that our offense did enough to win this game. Our defense really did let us down. It's a weird feeling after the past few weeks where our offense underperformed so badly. As for the Special Teams, it just baffles me to see them bring the ball out of the endzone nearly every.single.time and never get past the 20. How is the coaching staff not pounding that into them?
I've answered that one for a couple weeks now.
There's no statistical difference in scoring unless you get tackled pretty short.
Getting somebody like Newsome practice doing run backs and catching that ball is more important than making sure we start on the 25.
Thanks for the stats. I think there is a lot of merit to your argument I would argue that it is better to take a knee in that situation because you are probably not going to get 25+ yards and you open yourself up to other mistakes...Penalties, fumbles, injuries. Better to take the free 25 yards
Well reasoned but, I'd rather they take it out when they think they can make it out to the 20 or so, even if they get stopped short as long as they make it to the 10.
Better to learn as much as they can now before they HAVE to do it.
From a football standpoint, it makes almost no difference to get stopped 15-25 except to the fan.
Think Moneyball type analysis.
One time after Newsome has run out 100 of these, he'll start taking it out to the 35 periodically and one time, when we really need it, he'll get it out to the 50 or one of the guys will run it back for a TD.
That 35 yd line start makes much more difference than a bunch of starts at the 17.
That's the NEW football thinking that everyone keeps hammering Frank saying he won't do.
I see him doing it and it's happening right now.
#'s or GTFO*
*sarcastica, but #'s please.
This is not all of it by far but I got interested in it as a distraction last year. There has actually been a decent amount of analysis but, here is a quick and dirty.
Left is expected points bottom is starting yards to TD.
This chart shows a representation of a value meaning called "Expected Points". If you look here, at a starting 1st down position of the 15-17 yard line it's about 0.15 or so and the 25 as 0.45. Get it out to the 30 and the number jumps to close to 1.0.
The lack of a real difference is that in each case it's 1st and ten regardless of 15 yd line or 25.
Behind the ten you don't have enough room to maneuver for your offense and the risk of the opposing team scoring before you do goes up too quickly.
Way too simple and short but it'll wet your chops to follow down the rabbit hole.
My summary is that the difference between starting at the 15-25 is not impacting but starting inside your own 10 is a poor choice whereas the possibility of a big return is tempting.
Along with increasing competence in returns as each return is performed, the skill of the returning team increases, helping to skew the chance of a big return due to a higher skill level as well as increased number of rolls of the dice to beat the low odds of a big return.
See these for additional info but it is just the tip of the iceberg.
http://outsidethehashes.com/?
p=199#more-199
Harvard Sports Analysis blog
Most probably though, I wasn't very clear trying to describe this so, just jump into the pool.
I agree. Remember, 31 points would have beaten any of the other 8 teams we played before BC, and our offense had no turnovers so you can't say BC scored more than Miami because of our offense's mistakes either.
Actually our magic number this season is 34 or 35 points. And we would've gotten that and the win if we don't get a kick blocked.
I agree we scored more in our wins, although no team (until BC) has scored more than 30 on us. My point was just that our defense gave up more points than they have any other game this year, and the offense scored more than they did in any of our other losses.
On the punts that pinned us deep we did not have a returner back. If we had our normal 2 guys back we would have caught them at the 10.
That was only on one of them. I think Frank was concerned about a possible fake... maybe because he had fakes on his mind that day.
The one thing that has been clear the last three weeks: the offense struggles until the opposing defense goes into prevent mode.
BC never went into prevent. Our offense just moved the ball.
I have to agree about the offense. I couldn't believe the drive we strung together at the end. Where was that for the first 3 quarters. Something is just off. I refuse to blame the defense. Yes they had a let down but how many freaking stops did they come up with just to make it close? This season is about an offense with no identity that can't consistently score points. Football is changing relying on the defense to win games each week will get you beat more times than not. I hate to see such good defenses wasted paired with terrible offensive play. If we ever get an offense that can consistently score points we'll win a lot of ball games. Assuming Bud Foster hasn't bailed at that point. I hope somehow we bounce back and save this season. I hate the idea of breaking the bowl streak or loosing to UVA or worst of all both.
I hope this doesn't offend, but you're coming into this analysis with an answer and trying to make the facts fit that answer. The offense scored enough points to win, and did not allow BC an unreasonable number of drives or amount of time. Most importantly they did not turn the ball over. The offense was not good for the middle of the game, but they were never bad, and they started strong and ended strong.
The defense allowed three passes over 20 yards, which is borderline in my opinion, and runs of 57 and 68. Either the two long runs or the three long passes would have been ok, something we could contain and recover from. All five in one close game was too much. This is not Bud Foster's fault, nor is it the players' fault. It resulted from insufficient depth.
I don't think our special teams played particularly poorly, but they didn't play particularly well. More importantly, BC's special teams either played really well or got really lucky. Either way, we lost the field-position battle in a huge way, and our defense did not play well enough.
I would argue the special teams play and coaching was insufficient in the game. On several of the punts we didn't have anybody back to down the ball even after they showed they were rolling the ball well on short kicks. Our returners continue to bring the ball out and fail to get to the 25, take a knee. I know Egbert disagrees with this, but it has to be demoralizing to the offense and the fans to have to go 85-90 yards almost every time after a kickoff.
The fumble I can actually forgive the easiest of all the mistakes. But the others were mainly the fault of the coaching...
Once again, it all comes down to the o-line. Without a solid line it is impossible to be consistent. good momentum is hard to build and bad plays/penalties are almost impossible to overcome.
VT is a high wire act, when things work it's pretty, but when there's a slip, it's ugly and there is very little margin for error.
When our offense started clicking in the second. I saw brewer rolling out and the pocket moving a lot more. Seems like whoever was making the play calls was trying to protect brewer and the line
Maybe its just me, but it seems brewer is leaving the pocket way too soon. Doesn't have the confidence to stay in the pocket and go through his progressions. Then again, our oline has been average at best most times.
No our Oline has been quite good at some points but then the next play completely leave an unblocked player.
It's consistency that's the problem.
See some of French's recent reviews for more on this in detail.
Getting a roughing the passer penalty negated by an intentional grounding call is this season in a nutshell. And what happened to the offsides flag that was thrown at the start of that play?
I just posted that in the other thread.
Well that was a crap intentional grounding call to begin with. That one ticked me off because it was completely bunk
Also true. I was amazed they called it and more amazed when they ignored the offsides.
The offsides would have been negated with the roughing the passer. That being said the grounding call was garbage. To me it looked like he scrambled out of the pocket, back in and back out.
Screen passes are definitely a pet peeve of mine now. And why don't we have a punt returner catch the ball instead of them downing it on the one? You put your heels on the 9, if it goes over your head, let it go. If not,fair catch it! That's what I was taught in midget league! We let it hit the ground on the 15 and let it roll
they were rugby kicking, it was hitting outside the 10 and bouncing/rolling down to the 1 ... low line drives that are tough to field, which is why more and more teams are going to the rugby style kickers
They looked pretty high and catchable to me. Besides, rugby style is when the punter runs to the side and kicks it on the run. That's not what they were doing
you're right, one of the announcers called it a rubgy type kick and I guess it stuck in my head... they also said RVD was playing on BCs special teams, so I should've known they couldn't be trusted
We didn't have a returner back deep on at least 2 of them.
I think the screen passes are a sight call...AKA Brewer and the receivers realize they have a favorable match up and they throw it...If you are throwing too a talented receiver you should get more than 2-3 yards out of it.
We don't have Dez Bryant on our team
Showing the Redskins trying to tackle isn't fair
I do believe that the Redskins won that game, in Dallas...
Blind squirrels find a nut every once in a while
Okay, everyone, I know we don't have Dez Bryant on our team. I just wanted to show that good offenses use screens too. There aren't even blockers here and he gets good yardage! I'd feel pretty good about Bucky Hodges' chance to bully small corners on screens in a similar fashion
Or at least to drive his legs and keep the play going until the rest of the offense can push him into the end zone...
Twice.
Two Bush pushes in one game, I love it. When Sam collided with Micheal it looked like a pretty violent collision.
The reason we're doing it is because we can't run the ball. It's almost like a synthetic run if you will.... My problem with it is, it doesn't work, So why do it 10+ times a game
It was being used to spread the defense and we were getting 3-5 yards out of it, same as a running play.
The ball should be tossed to the wideout so he can step upfield into the catch and be moving when he catches the ball.
A number of them today were poorly placed and there was negative momentum or 0 momentum.
Some of them were right on however and made a nice gain.
Someone correct me if I am wrong but when you do it like that you usually have a bunch formation with two wide outs to block and one to catch and run...The idea being the two closest defenders are blocked and the third is usually deep enough for the receiver to get a couple of yards. The screens we ran tonight were typically our slot receiver running to the side line where the outside receiver only had one person lined up against them. That can't be a called play because you dont know the coverage the defense will be in.
The best thing about a screen is you can run it with your left tackle and two of your best tailbacks in the training room. Only two things have to go right -- the pass has to be in front of the intended receiver, and the other receivers have to sustain a block for two seconds.
I"m pretty numb to the losses now. I didn't expect a win against BC. We have seen what happens to us when we play mobile quarterbacks. Even when we contain them for most of the day it's a break down here or there that get us. I was proud of how the team battled back and was about to change the channel (which I have never done) when the fake punt occured. They dragged me back in. But when Murphy ran that 57 yards untouched I wasn't really surprised. Now for the first time ever I am not expecting a win at Duke. DUKE!! We are who we are this year. Hopefully recruits see the brightside of this team and see chances for early playing time.
We are going to get smoked by Duke. Never imagined that coming out of my mouth.
I know this is a lost season but if our players keep fighting and (one way or another) we manage to pick up a few of these very high profile recruits, I am okay losing more games. I just want to feel like it's for something. If we lose out but positive changes happen to the coaching staff (I'm not one of those "Fire Everyone" people, but I think it's safe to say there are some deficiencies there), then I'll live.
I'll never stop watching and rooting for VT, no matter what happens.
Say what you will about franks comments, I too would like to see a little more fire from him. I am not thrilled about the w-l record, but I am proud of the effort put out by this team. I truly believe the guys are puttin out their maximum despite being regularly out manned and/or out coached in key areas. Other than Miami, they've fought and had a chance to win every game. Sure I'm not happy about where we are right now, but I am proud of the resilience of this team.
And I like matuapuaka a lot (hope I spelled dude's name right!) he's gonna have the middle of the field locked down for the next 3 years.
And I worship Sam Rogers. Dude is a football player.
Need to find me a #45 jersey.
The last several weeks I have been upset about Frank's comments to the press, but this week I feel the comments were appropriate. He said the same thing every week this season, but this is the second or third time it rang true with me. The team played hard, they played well most of the game, the offense didn't make any mistakes. The defense made several but they were all mistakes we can learn from. The special teams got crushed, but that was 40% BC and 40% luck, and about 20% mistakes on our end.
Watching the winning touchdown score because you weren't in your gap is a hard way to learn. But he's making his first or second start, and he played well most of the game. Sometimes the hard lessons are the ones you remember best.
Frank says almost the same thing after every game. Has done so for the past 20 years.
Any controversy regarding his post game interview is actually kind of funny.
Our guys played good, the opponent is a tough honorable team with a good coach. Both teams played hard.
You know, they'll get after ya kinda stuff.
Guys...this situation isn't that difficult to dissect. After all, VT is a numbers college. Revenue is the main thing about the main thing. It starts from the top down, but big money always seems to get in he way of progress. Pro-Beamer $ wants him in there until 2017. Pro-Babcock $ wants Pep or at least ECU OC Lincoln Riley in here ASAP.
Now can we all get real? All of us call a better game than what is happening on the field. Lof is no better than Dingspring. Play calling is shameful. Barely winning and mostly losing on wild broken plays based an shear athleticism is sad commentary. Shane is a good recruiter....he gets to stay. OL isn't small, just not athletic. No excuses here, none what so ever for a team that brands itself a running football team. Just fix it with studs.
Foster will be happy to go down in the Hall as one of best coordinators of all time with a title. The BC game is his first bad game in, what, a hundred or something? The guy is legendary, let's not ever forget that. T. Gray sends some of the best to the NFL. We're set on D. Need bigger interior....fairly obvious.
The very best college football programs change up until they find the right fit, and they don't waste any time at it. Wit needs to make some off season moves that keeps moving the program forward and not just one that tolerates a stadium emptying out on national television. Pride before the fall is not an option..
That is what a truly loyal Hokie Nation simply finds unbelievable.
P.S. Jason Worlds introduced himself as being from Carteret H.S. tonight on Sunday Night Football. Need we say more?
Agree with a lot of what you said, however I disagree that you or I could call a better game on offense... the O line simply isn't very good, we can't just line up and run the ball consistently, can't drop back and pass without pressure causing the QB to run for his life - what 80 plays can you call that will gain consistent positive yardage?
The offense seems to find it's groove with the no huddle, and grinds to a halt otherwise... I don't know for a fact who is flipping the switch on the no huddle call, but why we aren't doing more of it really puzzles me.. and to really give a fair assessment of Lefty, I think I'd have to know how much control over the tempo and overall strategy of the offensive gameplan is in his hands
You have to go with what strengths you have. Trying to prove you can run up the gut is in fact prideful. Running to the edge on third and short with a big fast back is what I'm talking about. Throwing deep outs from a QB with a soft arm on third and short is irrational. Not using Bucky H like Fitztgerald or Megatron is foolish. Until that guy or Ford doesn't dominate a game, you keep going to him. This is what Lof doesn't get, when something works, he abandons it for some BS, fully telegraphed running play. Where and why do you think this guy has marching orders from Beamer? That's never been cited anywhere.
Never said he did, but I've not seen it cited anywhere that Lefty has the full reigns over the tempo and offensive strategy either, which would be some vital info before assessing his job performance. But the fact that it is cited that there was an impromptu meeting in which it was emphasized that he needed to emphasize the running game tells me at least that Lefty doesn't have 100% control over the offense.
I agree that we need to go to our strengths, and I believe the no huddle offense is our strength right now, and I'm curious whose hand is on the switch that shuts it down
That impromptu meeting was the RB coach telling the OC that the OC should trust the true freshman RBs in the tight spot they were in. And the RBs came through.
Don't read anything more into it than that. It was the RB coach lobbying for his guys with the OC. Pretty normal thing to do.
BTW, the RB coach then went and motivated his guys and he was correct, the offense came through on the backs of some great OL and RB work the seconf half.
I keep seeing this explanation, but to me it sounded clearly like there was other coaches involved in the meeting.. and Shane went up to Lefty after the meeting saying to have faith in the RBs
Welcome to your very first post but ...
There are an awful lot of assumptions there that seem shallow at best starting with the implication that big money always gets in the way and the assumption that there is a you are with Frank or with Whit and there is no in between. And that Whit is trying to buy the ECU coach.
You'll need to go back and make the case for your assumptions.
Some of the guys change it up, as Worilds does.
Roethelsburg introduce himself as being from the Miami Redhawks and 3 guys from the Ravens defense intro'd themselves as from their h.s.
Don't read too much into it.
Speaking of Worilds and the Steelers, this happened:
This game is seeing a lot of bad blood on the field now.
When doesn't that game have a lot of bad blood.
I've heard guys introduce themselves with reference to their elementary schools.
5 possessions start inside the 5 (on 3 of those punts we did not a player back to field it)
Blocked field goal before half
Not one finger laid on Murphy on his 57 yard run
Fumbled kickoff that lead to 3 points
4th and a foot and couldn't get it
It all adds up to failure to execute.
So are the 5 teams that we have lost to better at execution, or our inability to execute?
Give the other teams a tip of the hat, or make excuses why we can't get it done?
Just please don't give me, "We'll get this thing right" or "We're going to get better." Nut up or shut up!
Welcome to your very first full day on TKP and your first post.
Inconsistency comes with lack of experience and improved with better recruiting so, "We'll get better."
Our execution has not been good.
We are going to improve.
I agreed with the tenor of this post the past few weeks, but I feel today like I felt after the ECU loss. This is not a bad team or a team of bad players or a badly coached team. The main problem this team has had since April was depth. We are pretty deep at TE and we were pretty deep at TB until the injuries got crazy. But we were always worried about depth on the O-line, and we were always worried about depth on all three levels of the defense.
The field goal was blocked because McLaughlin was out and BC exploited his replacement. Murphy ran 57 yards because neither Luther Maddy for Chase Williams was there to tackle him. McLaughlin's injury also explains some of the offensive sputtering in the middle of the game.
Watching the Miami game made me want to fire all but three of the coaches and cut most of the players. Watching this game gave me hope that this team can get better before the season is over.
Thanks for the invite Egbert. Always appreciate a warm welcome. Being class of '82, I like many had to endure the Jimmy Sharpe and Bill Dooley eras before Beamer came along, and I appreciate the good years, but I also know when a coach needs to maintain his reputation.
Peterno and Bowden fought retirement until they were coaching beaten programs surrounded by fearful assistant coaches and VT is now going through the same experience. For crying out loud, just look at the special teams play of which Coach B oversees, couldn't be more pathetic. Leaving an unmanned punt return inside the 20...really? The kicks being blocked are on us. Yikes! Beamer Ball ain't no more. That's a fact. And that's what mesmerized America about the Hokies. You can only live on the past for a little while.
All the play by play commentary of the prior 100 posts fails to touch on this, why I don't know, it's as obvious as the sun coming up in the morning. I'm the very first to admit not being a PHD in X's and O's such as on this board. Guys try too hard to micro-analyze what went wrong when game after game it's glaringly clear the offensive coaching scheme is hugely below par. And that needs to change before VT loses its ability be taken seriously.
Just talked about ST in another thread but, Frank has already talked about the ST weakness.
Frank is not able to play ST according to his theory due to lack of depth and not risk injury to his playmakers. It hamstrings the ST.
For detail on this see Franks comments on Strohman only taking punt returns, not kickoffs and 8 of the ST guys playing their very first college snaps on ST at the Alabama game last year.
I understand some of why the short punts had no one back, I have not heard all of why in their words. I'm waiting for our resident guru of playback to complete his work so I can see for myself.
I'm wondering if Strohman got hurt and they didn't trust a short fumble. Also note the magical bounces those guys were consistently getting on those punts.
Anyway, we could put all of starters back on ST again but you risk losing more than the 25% to injury that we already have. There's not many guys left to fill in.