After yet another demoralizing last second loss in Lane Stadium, it would seem the Hokies could really stand to get back on the field and forget about what happened against Boston College on Saturday.
Instead, they get to think about this loss for the next two weeks.
"Any time you lose a game you want to get back to practice as soon as you can just to get the bad taste out of your mouth," said quarterback Michael Brewer. "You want a chance to play another game, win another game and turn it around. But we're going to have to sit on this one for a couple weeks."
The Hokies will get a few days off before resuming preparations later this week to head to North Carolina for a matchup with Duke, and while some players nursing injuries might appreciate the bye, others want to erase the memories of this loss as soon as possible.
"From like a managing standpoint, it's probably good that this bye week's here with all the knicks and knacks we have, but for me, I'd like to play," said receiver Willie Byrn. "After the Miami game we had a few games off too, and you kind of want to get going, but that's the way the schedule goes."
They'll have plenty to analyze after watching the tape against the Eagles.
A Sporadically Hibernating Offense
The Hokies could not have started much faster on offense against Boston College.
Fans were groaning after a penalty had the team work from its own five yard line, but that didn't seem to matter to Brewer and company as they responded with a 95-yard touchdown drive that took just over three minutes.
"We had a good scripted first drive," said offensive coordinator Scot Loeffler. "We were overloaded in the box and we kicked some non-verbals out and completed balls we need more of that."
Between a big third down pass to Sam Rogers in the flat, a 15-yard gain from recently returned receiver Josh Stanford and a 44-yard catch and run from Byrn, the Hokies looked like the offense people thought they'd see coming into the year.
Then things took a turn for the worse. On the team's next nine drives of the first three quarters, the offense combined to total just 85 yards and a measly three points.
"We just had a slow start again," said center David Wang. "A slow start after a fast touchdown."
While the team's early offensive production wasn't as disastrous as its outings against Pitt or Miami, it still played quite the role in the frustrating loss.
The Hokies started three different drives inside BC territory in that time (two drives started on the Eagles' 46 and Tech's final drive of the first half started on the Eagles' 23) yet they came away empty each time.
But what exactly led to the offense's painfully slow 45 minutes?
A lack of a running game was likely a huge factor. The Hokies managed 69 yards on the ground, with 30 of those coming on the team's fake punt on fourth down from whip linebacker Derek Di Nardo.
"They are a very difficult defense to run the football against," Loeffler said. "There is a reason they are the number eight defense in the country."
That ineptitude had ripple effects throughout the offense, as neither the run game nor the screen game ever provided the kind of results the team needed to stretch the field vertically very often.
"I think we opened it up a little bit, but we certainly didn't run and do the quick touch passing on the perimeter as well as we'd like to and that's something we've got to work on," Byrn said.
But, proving how interconnected all these issues are, the offensive line didn't exactly provide Brewer with a lot of time to throw the ball or for the receivers to get open.
"It's tough when they're loading the box and bringing so much heat and everything and the receivers and tight ends don't have as much time to even get through the routes, so it's tough for Brewer," Byrn said. "He's not 6'6", he's not like Logan was last year, so it just adds a whole other sense of urgency for the offense."
Part of that comes from right tackle Jonathan McLaughlin going out early in the second quarter with an ankle injury, forcing recently converted DT Wade Hansen into the starting lineup.
"Wade played his heart out, but it's tough to lose Jon, he's a great player, but we trust Wade and when he came in he played well," said guard Wyatt Teller.
Hansen may have played hard, but the team undoubtedly missed McLaughlin. The line was already struggling before he went out, but then that loss created a snowball effect that led to the unit allowing three sacks and four additional QB hits.
Yet the main factor Frank Beamer and the rest of the staff pointed to when explaining the offense's struggles was its field position woes.
"We had too many start out on the one yard line," Beamer said. "That's an unusual deal, that's a tough place to start."
BC punter Alex Howell and the Eagles' punt team certainly deserves some credit for pinning the Hokies deep, but the offense isn't blameless for its complete lack of production when it needed to flip field position the most.
The unit could only manage drives of negative three yards, two yards, nine yards and two yards on drives when the Hokies were stuck deep in their own territory.
Yes, the offensive playbook shrinks in the shadow of the goalposts, but the fact that the team couldn't get even a first down in these types of situations went a long way toward contributing to yet another sluggish start.
Key Defensive Breakdowns
Coming into this game, the Hokies knew Tyler Murphy would be a big part of the Eagles' rushing attack.
"We knew they were going to run the quarterback and that's the frustrating part of it," said defensive coordinator Bud Foster.
Even with that advance knowledge, they let Murphy run for 122 yards, including the back-breaking 57-yard score at the end of the fourth quarter.
But those numbers are a little bit deceiving. Take away that game-sealing score and a 39-yard scamper by Murphy in the third quarter, and his numbers look downright ordinary: 18 carries and a net of 26 yards.
"We came in knowing he was going to run and we knew we'd have to adapt and I feel like we did a good job except for a few plays and he capitalized on those plays," said linebacker Andrew Motuapuaka.
That's not to make excuses for Foster's bunch, but it gets a little more understandable considering how banged up the unit is.
"In Coach Foster's defense, everybody's got to fill the gap," said linebacker Deon Clarke. "If you don't fill the gap, you'll see it open quick."
Motuapuaka owned up to his responsibility on that 57-yard breakdown, but it truly was one of his rare mistakes on an otherwise solid day. He lived in the Eagles' backfield, compiling 14 total tackles and half a tackle for loss.
"All week I was practicing being loud, being a leader out there, trying to make sure the whole defense was lined up right and it helped today," Motuapuaka said. "I was more comfortable out there, so I could just go and play."
The defense certainly wasn't perfect, and while the breakdowns on seemingly routine gap fits are infuriating, the unit seemingly gave chance after chance to the offense. Plays like the Hokies' stop on fourth and one late in the second quarter or the team's effort to hold the Eagles to just a field goal when they started on Tech's 10-yard line show the unit has plenty to be proud of.
"When we stopped them to a field goal, I told the kids that was a big time stop and we're going to come back and win this game," Foster said. "We ended up going up but we didn't hold up our end of the deal."
A quick glance over the box score might make it seem like this loss was solely on the shoulders of the defense, but the answer is certainly is more nuanced.
What Now?
With the losses at home mounting, and depression setting in, it's going to be a challenge for this team to remain composed.
Yet the coaches believe they have what it takes to answer the call and preserve the team's vaunted bowl streak.
"We challenged their toughness all week long," Loeffler said. "We challenged their toughness and they never gave in."
Byrn agrees that there is some modicum of pride to be found in the way the offense responded after such a lackluster pair of games.
"We knew they were a top 10 defense and it was pretty much a test to see what we're made of," Byrn said. "We didn't execute the whole time, but we fought the whole time."
But for seniors like Byrn, the moral victory is ultimately a hollow one. If this squad wants to avoid being the first Tech team to miss a bowl game in over two decades, it's going to take something more.
"Where it starts is this Tuesday. We've got a bye week, we're 4-5, naturally some younger guys will think they've got more seasons ahead, we're not going for an ACC championship or really in the running, so maybe you just kind of take the Tuesday off during the bye week," Byrn said. "So we're going to see what this team wants to do on Tuesday. That's what it's all about. That's where it starts."
For Teller, it's a matter of putting himself in the shoes of a senior like Byrn.
"I'm just trying to play for the seniors," Teller said. "That's one thing I came in and talked to Dave and Caleb (Farris) about because I would start and they're like 'just do your job,' and I'm like 'I'm going to play for you guys when my shot comes,' and that's what I've always focused on."
These losses take an emotional toll on even the toughest players, and Teller takes notice.
"It's always tough when you lose and you look over at David and he's tearing up, it's tough to see that," Teller said. "It makes me tear up, he's a tough guy and I'm a tough guy, but it's tough. Losses suck."
Teller doesn't necessarily mean that he and his burly compatriots are busy sobbing on the sidelines, but it's clear that this losing is affecting the team.
"He's definitely emotional, I wouldn't say he's crying or anything like that, but football is an emotional sport," Teller said. "He only has three more, or four more or five more guaranteed, so it's tough."
But if these Hokies truly want to deliver for the seniors, while also setting a foundation for how the young players compete in 2015 and beyond, then they'll have to fight even harder against the Blue Devils.
"Our backs are against the wall and we're going to find out a little about our character and about ourselves," Foster said. "The baton's been passed to these guys and they've got to uphold their end of it."
Comments
Good article Alex, but you could of used the one from last week or the week before with a couple minor changes. The bottom line is this team is not very good in just about about facet of the game. The offense can't play strong for an entire game, the defense takes way too many chances to offset their injuries, ST are not special and coaching, well let's just say it is not the best I have seen at VT.
My outlook is to play hard the rest of the year, see if we can put together one or two good game plans to win a couple of games and get some extra time with the team for the bowl games.
I know the future may look bright but if we don't install some organizational changes this year, the lights might still be out next year and then changes will be made.
I completely disagree. I saw a very different team from what I've seen the past few weeks. I am much less pessimistic than I was a week ago.
CFB has said every week that the team would learn from its mistakes and build on the experience. Through the Miami game we actually saw the opposite -- the team played worse every week, and neither the players nor the coaches appeared to be learning anything. This week I felt like CFB was telling the truth. The team is playing better and has the potential to play much better still. It sucks that we lost, but this did not look or feel like the past few weeks, at least to me.
Well to be fair it's not that hard to do better than what happened against Pitt and Miami, that's an extremely low bar. If the team failed yet again then it would be extremely serious.
I don't know if this team has potential to play better, I don't think it does. If there was then we would've already seen it considering we've played more than half the season. Ohio State doesn't count for me, a lot of things went our way that day that could've ended up in disaster, the stars aligned for us. Other than that anomaly, we've been a generally mediocre team.
That said, yes, this team was light years ahead of what we saw against Pitt and Miami.
I wonder how different our perception of the team would be if we had lost to anOSU.
I think we'd still be somewhat disappointed, but not quite calling for heads the same way. Winning that game, as great as it is and happy as I am that we won, probably gave us unrealistic expectations for the rest of the season. That game was an anomaly.
Speaking only for myself, this is absolutely true. I came into the Bill & Mary game not knowing if this team would be better than 2010 or worse than 2013. After that game I thought we had real possibilities, and I was prepared to put a lot of weight on whether the OSU game was a good loss or a bad loss. I had no expectation at all of winning. When we won that game I completely lost my head. I took the ECU loss in stride, because I thought there was a lot of good play in that game. I was upset by the GT loss because I thought we should have won, and because I thought it would cost us the Coastal. Then running over WMU and UNC even though the team had obvious issues I wasn't upset by them. As late as Oct 15 I was wondering where we would be ranked at the end of the season, and thinking about spending the first weekend in December in Charlotte.
How can you say you saw a completely different team when, after the 1st score they did nothing for almost 3 quarters. If you mean they scored first, I'll give you that. But after that same old song and dance. I will say you are a glass more than half full person, and that's a good thing.
When you start with the ball inside your own 5 yd line 1st and 10.
Odds are better that your opponent will score before you will. This is one time when field position will spank your butt.
There were a couple things that were improved upon in the Miami game.
No Illegal substitution penalties and only 1 false start. 4 penalties.
Overall a more disciplined game.
We blocked a point after.
Rogers continued to develop as a receiver out of the backfield averaging 15.7 yds a catch, which we utilized very well against BC. A big lesson learned there.
I have to disagree with the article. The offense did what was needed to win this game. Over 400 yards of offense, no turnovers, and a nearly equal time of possession versus a ball control offense. That should have won the game with a normal Bud Foster defense. But the special teams continue to be bad and the injuries have given us an average defense not a good one.
Agreed. A telling quote from this article:
"That's not to make excuses for Foster's bunch, but it gets a little more understandable considering how banged up the unit is."
So is the Offense -- and quite a bit mind you, but seems like everyone doens't give them any slack -- so why should we give the D any?
Mind you I'm not suggesting anything negative here at all; It just baffles me how we're willing to say the D is banged up and can afford some lapses, but the O can't at all.
Because we have confidence in the abilities of Bud Foster to put together a stellar Defense. This is backed-up by previous years of stellar performance from the "D". That reassurance is lacking in the Offensive staff.
And yet even in a loss they put in a good game. Yes, we were bad in the second and third quarters, but even after the bad position special teams put us in, the offense managed to score enough to take the lead.
Yes, the offense was not horrible and actually achieved their main function and scored points. I give them credit for doing so. That last quarter was great for the offense. The problem is that they did this for only the first time after the 1st bye week. That is a stretch of three games.
So to reiterate, in 12 quarters of play, our offense only played well in one of those 12 quarters (4th Quarter of the BC game). That is 1/12 = 8.3%
You could argue this is one of the poorer jobs Foster has done with the defense. After a great OSU game, he let Worthy of ECU beat us on his own. The DiNardo comes in, after barely playing, to cover one of only 2 receivers for a critical 4th and 15 against GT. The QB draw at the end of the BC game was obviously what they were going to do. I haven't gotten to go back and see if that was just poor execution by the players, but we had very few players in the box before the snap on that play.
The offense has been bad, but the D has been very disappointing, even with all the injuries. I definitely agree that I have more faith in Foster than Loeffler, but I still believe this hasn't been his best year leading the defense by a long shot.
It was one mistake by one guy: Matuapuaka, who owned up to it in the post-game interview. He had a great game overall, for a Mike linebacker making his second start. On that play he got on the wrong side of the blocker (don't recall if it was a fullback or a pulling guard) so he and Bonner ended up in the same gap, with no one in the other gap.
I'm no expert, but I don't think the defense has lacked for preparation or motivation any more this year than in years past. I think the problem has been depth. You can hold Bud Foster accountable for the results, but you can't blame him for guys getting hurt.
I saw it and it wasn't one of their small guys blocking Matuapuaka.
It was his gap but the guy just made a very effective block and got him turned.
These things happen, he was trying hard to do his job and was not out of position.
Change takes time -- we're still feeling the effects of bad policy / recruiting especially on the O. This will take some turn-around time to fix. So, giving our O some slack considering how it seems like everyone's a FR or SOPH isn't too much to ask in my book.
I would argue that all things being equal, even in the loss, we still put up 400+ yards on O, and it wasn't soley the O or the D that lost us that game. So, that being the case, be equally lenient and equally harsh on both the D and O.
Someone raises this argument seemingly every time VT loses a game. The most basic retort would be to say, "Look at the rankings and tell me which side is performing better as a whole." As far as the O not getting enough slack for any lapses at all... I'm not sure what any lapse at all entails, but 10 consecutive drives TOTALING 83 yards (that makes for the whopping average of 8.3 yards per possession) would seem to more than cover that. The defense gave up far too many big plays on Saturday and I don't support making excuses for their play either, but I don't think that means we should excuse or not recognize that the offense didn't play well for the vast majority of the game in their own right.
Copy-pasting what I said above:
"I would argue that all things being equal, even in the loss, we still put up 400+ yards on O, and it wasn't soley the O or the D that lost us that game. So, that being the case, be equally lenient and equally harsh on both the D and O."
There are mistakes you expect a team to make and there are mistakes that should not be made. When the offense was self-destructing due to false starts, substitution infractions, and nonsense like that, some of us were less than forgiving. When Brewer threw careless interceptions (and not all interceptions are careless) I for one held a grudge. Early last year, when it seemed 3 out of every 4 passes hit a receiver in both hands but ended up on the ground, that was frustrating. At the beginning of this year when JC Coleman was running between the tackles while a healthy Marshawn Williams and Shai McKenzie were sitting on the bench, that was infuriating. Failure to push around the #10 rushing defense in the country is not on the same level.
The defense basically gave up five plays: runs of 68 and 57, and passes of 37, 25, and 24. If someone convinces me that 3 of those 5 failures were Bud's fault, I will say Bud cost us the game.
BC had an advantage of about 12.5 yards in starting field position. Their scoring drives started at our 41, their 37, the 50, OUR TEN, their 31, and their 43. If you ask me, that was the difference in the game.
True, the final numbers are good for the offense. But it would better serve the team if those numbers were spread more evenly throughout the game. Having long stretches without production adds stress to defense and ruins field position.
Still, the defense can't keep giving up so many big plays.
Offensive start dooms team? We had the lead in the 4th quarter
Wow, tough crowd
I'm usually the first to criticize the offense, and there is certainly a lot to criticize about this offense, but for one of the few times this season, the offense played okay. We scored 21 points in the 4th quarter. We scored 10 points in the 1st half. This offense is like a two headed monster, I just don't know what is going on concerning the "O". But what cost us the game, imho, was the fumble by Newsome middle to late in the 3rd quarter that gave the ball right back to BC at our 12 - 15 yard line. They score a field goal. If we had held onto that ball and gotten a 1st down or two, then this game is different.
I guess my overall point is that in this game, the offense came alive and almost won us this game. I just wish they would come alive sooner, or better yet, not go into hibernation for most of the game.
\_()_/
EDIT: Oh man, can't do ASCII shruggie guy? Bummer.
I was pretty bummed when I tried it over the weekend
Does this work:
\^0^/
Joe hates ASCII for some reason.
To be bowl eligible, we need 2 more wins.
There are 3 games left. If we lose all 3, it will be *the worst* record since 1992 when we finished the season with 2 wins, 8 losses, and a tie.
Not to mention, if we lose the remaining three games, it snaps a bowl appearance record and it also means the loss of the Commonwealth Cup.
And judging from the performance of our offense, this is all, sadly, a very real possibility.
I'm really hoping it doesn't come to this.
The offense scored 4 TDs, and had 2 other drives end in FG attempts ... that gives us a chance to score 34 points, we do that every game and I think we'll be fine ..... you guys picked the wrong week to pile on the offense if you ask me (I know you didn't, but just putting my 2 cents in)
The reason why we score 21 points in the fourth quarter is because we finally had a sense of urgency to get down the field and score through a more up tempo offense. Why we don't have this mentality and game plan all game still baffles me.
It's so weird that the offense was only productive during that first scripted drive, and then the fourth quarter where we were in a big enough hole late in the game to be forced to go to a passing heavy, tempo-based attack - the only thing that we have ever seen this offense execute well all year...
And yet, for three solid quarters we did absolutely nothing to the tune of 9 drives gaining 85 total yards. Almost like we were stubbornly doing something over and over again, despite the fact that it wasn't working and hasn't been working all season. Yet we did it anyway until we had no choice but to stop...
Isn't that...weird?
very weird and concerning. It's obvious imho the coaches are very stubborned about the play calling. I don't agree with people not blaming this on the offense/offensive play calling bc of what you have stated. Score on the first drive, then go almost three quarters without scoring, then started scoring in the 4th because we were down, so we had a sense of urgency and started being a more pass oriented/up temp offense. Now, I am not giving the defense a pass either for the record. Gave up too many big plays and not enough stops when we needed them.
Definition of insanity?
My thoughts exactly.
I didn't think Lefty scripted his opening drives but according to his quote he did for this game. I have never thought that scripting anything more than the first few plays was a good idea. I would still Like to see Lefty at field level to see if it improves game planning on the fly.
I think it looks that way and the Miami game featured a couple big misses by Bonner and Jarret but I think we've played more cover 0 this season than any other season.
It may be my impression through increase football knowledge or paying attention more (I blame French), but a lot of the explosive plays have come because we had no safety back.
I think this reply was meant to be a few posts down regarding safety help....and I agree by the way
You would think that if the first few plays were scripted, then WHY did we have to take a time out on the very first play from scrimmage. As a result of that bone head mistake, we did not have that time out at the end of the 1st half when the field goal attempt was blocked.
The announcers said that the play clock never started. So Brewer looked up, saw zeroes, and called timeout, presumably hoping to avoid a penalty since they were already inside the 5 because of another penalty.
That's exactly what happened. The clock behind him was on 25 but the clock he could see read 0. That should have been an official timeout. I guess you could say Brewer should have realized the clock hadn't started running yet, but I can't blame him for reacting when he saw 0 on the play clock.
Ah, kinda like the phantom offsides flag.
Yeah, that is what I thought as well from the game. The clock said 0 but there should have been time on it.
Finally, someone else (Andy Bitter), besides some of the fans, has put our thoughts to words:
Here is the article that I got the quote:
http://www.roanoke.com/sports/columns_and_blogs/blogs/andy_bitter_virgin...
I whole-heartedly agree.
Anybody watching this team this year not wearing the stubborn Beamer goggles can see this. Even my wife, who knows nothing about football made this observation.
Brewer has already thrown the ball a hundred times more than Tyrod at this point and IIRC 80 times more than Thomas at this point in the season.
If you are claiming we don't throw the ball, I'll claim you are wrong.
How would you like them to adjust?
I'm beginning to think I know why Brewer seems to have a spaghetti arm sometimes.
I had the same thought reading the stats from this game: 31/49 passing. That's a completion percentage of ... WOW, that's a lot of pass attempts! No wonder his arm gets tired!
Subtract every WR screen pass from those numbers since it has essentially taken the place of our running game.
What we are talking about is the flow, tempo and aggressiveness of the offensive. Watch how they played 2nd/3rd quarter vs the 4th. We are suggesting playing uptempo the entire game.
^_________ THIS!
When I complain about the play calling, it isn't exactly that we should always call more passing plays or more running plays. What I am suggesting are:
1) More aggressive play-calling at an uptempo, no huddle pace. What brought it home to me was that last scoring drive in the Pitt game in the 4th quarter where we were marching down the field. In the previous two quarters, we stalled and could not get into a rhythm. Look at our game against BC. Compare the 4th quarter to the previous three quarters of the game.
2) Match the play calling to the personnel we have on hand and the success rate at which they seem to execute said plays. I would like nothing more in the world to be able to run our RBs right down the opponents throats, but our team is currently not configured for these types of plays to be consistently successful. Our O-line can barely pass protect on a regular basis, let alone punch a hole against the opponents D-line and keep that hole open long enough for our RBs to run through it and get to the 2nd level of the opposition's "D".
Our offense just seems to work better when we run our plays at a faster pace. Also, running an uptempo game does not mean giving up on the run. I don't care which comes first, the passing game opening our running game or vice versa. What is the most frustrating thing for me are the three and outs that only eats-up 90 seconds of the clock.
We marched down the field on the first series throwing the ball, and then attempted to run, run, run the ball for the second week in a row. You are allowed to pass to open up the run.
"Our offense just seems to work better when we run our plays at a faster pace. Also, running an uptempo game does not mean giving up on the run. I don't care which comes first, the passing game opening our running game or vice versa. What is the most frustrating thing for me are the three and outs that only eats-up 90 seconds of the clock."
The key is execution. If you come out and run an uptempo offense that fails to get the first down, not only is it only 90 seconds (or less) of game clock, but it's even less in real time. Meaning less of a breather for our D. It doesn't matter if we run slow down offense or uptempo if we don't execute properly.
Yuppers. That's why it won't matter what offense we choose unless the fundamentals improve. We need better blocking from all positions. Good blocking down field is especially important for a fast pace and throw heavy offense
This is a great point. I've been discussing this with Egbert and others on other threads as well. And the point is that we are seeing two schools of thought.
First school: OSU/BC game style
Second school: Pitt/Miami games style
IMO it is clear as day that the offense we saw in OSU, BC and UNC is the complete opposite from Pitt and Miami. So it is a bit mystifying when people use stats to justify Beamer allowing the offense to opened up. The offense that was a disaster in Pitt and Miami is so eerily similar to O'Cainspring era that it just isn't logical to think Loeffler was dictating the game plan for those games. With zero sources all any of us have to go on is what we see in front of us, and what I see is a reluctance to let go. I'm not calling Loeffler a genius or anything, but clearly the style of play that is not normally associated with Beamer is working, while the one that he is more known for is not. So empirically it seems logical that Loeffler and our offense is getting dragged down by the anchor of yesteryear thought. Time to let go, because the only thing that IS working is when we play like we did in BC and OSU game. First step, get Stinespring out of the booth.
A big lapse in Beamer's judgement to allow this. He removes Stiney from the OC position yet ... kind of the one thing that .... me off.
You realize that you are only allowed so many coaches on the field during the game right? Beamer has typically always put the entire defensive coach staff on the field, so therefore Offensive coaches have to go to the box. Would you rather see Searels or S. Beamer in the box during the game?
the answer simply is, anyone other than Stinespring. And I say this having respect for the man and what he does for VT. he is a good TE coach, a great recruiter and an even better ambassador of the qualities that make VT football great, but a competent OC he is not.
Plus I think it just sends the wrong message for Beamer. We fired most everyone on our offensive staff except him precisely because he was not good at calling plays and running an offense, so putting him in the box with the guy you hire to overhaul your offense doesn't look very good IMO.
What makes you think that Scot is letting him interfere in the play calling?
so your argument is that Stiney is in the box because we need everyone else on the field and have to have a place to lock him away? don't buy it. I personally think he would be great on the sideline. He's a motivator and great with the players. he should be on the sideline.
My argument is who do you take off the field? Shane Beamer (RB coach), I could potentially see that. Searels constantly coaches during the breaks, when the defense is on the field etc. Moorehead?
BTW, I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. Stiney is a great motivator etc.
honestly, i get warm and fuzzies thinking about Moorehead up there calling plays with Lefty. I agree with (I think Horse and Petebuddywilson) that he may in fact be a brilliant offensive strategist waiting to burst out. And I think you can take the WR coach off the field and have Stiney fill the role he has on the sideline.
That's a tough guy to take off the field. Moorehead has a young receiving core right now and, as it appears to me on tv, he is coaching them up every time they are coming off the field. Maybe next year when the receivers are a bit older, but I think it's tough to take him off the field right now. If you really want Stiney out then why not Cornell?
yeah, this is definitely true about Moorehead and I agree. It may be the plan for the future but I still think he would be great up there. Cornell though, don't know, not sure what he adds up there, but would take him over Stiney.
My point with Cornell isn't necessarily what he adds but rather that he's not Stiney which, I believe, is more the general thought going around.
I agree about Moorehead, I think he's the potential to be a future HC. He recruits well and develops well. I'd love to see him get a shot at OC at Tech when the time comes, but realistically I think he's going to get wooed away before that happens.
agreed. +1 edited mine to reflect that
Nice new avatar by the way.
thanks! that's grandpa-Fernley, VT grad 1939 Chemical Engineering
that's awesome fernley!! :)
Thanks!
I agree that Cornell might be the best person to be up there to give Bud eyes in the sky, but Bud historically has kept everybody with him.
I would wonder what it would be like to have an eye in the sky for the defense. Maybe they would be able to see how the PA/pulling o-linemen look like from up above.
Also would help with little tweeks and adjustments to tell players to maintain their gap since that's what seems to kill us. Every player but 1 TRUE FRESHMAN is perfectly gapped but boom 57 yard TD, it sucks because that is an understandable mistake/assignment from a TF but that's what happens.
Try watching the skycam view. I've been watching it for a few weeks and it really does open up a different perspective on the alignments, gaps, and movement both pre- and post-snap.
Just for reference, from this past weekend's game notes per hokiesports.com:
On the field
Beamer, Beamer, Foster, Searles, Moorehead, Wiles
In the booth
Brown, Gray, Loeffler, Stinespring
thanks for the clarification
I disagree wholeheartedly that Stiney in the booth is the problem. As someone else alluded to, I want Moorehead on the field with the young receivers. Lefty likes being in the booth because he can have all of his sheets neatly in front of him and can see the field from a bird eye view and more easily call his plays. As far as people claiming Stiney is interfering with his decisions, I can't see this to be true. The coaches are on their headsets and all talk back and forth. Stiney is most likely Lefty's right hand man who is simply telling Lefty the down and distance, the defensive personal, and other keys that help Lefty make decisions.
I haven't seen this mentioned, but the announcers kept talking about how we had no safety help. It's typical for Bud's D to sell out, bring the house, etc. It's a feast or famine type defense, and we are used to the feasting aspect. You live by the sword and you die by the sword. We are OK with that as the long strikes that have plagued us this year are not typical for Bud. However on the 3 and 10 backbreaker 57 yard TD, why didn't we have safety help back there? Not deep in prevent defense mode, but at least back a few yards off the line of scrimmage? If we were expecting the draw play and just missed on an assignment, you'd think there would be some kind of buffer between a no gain play and taking it to the house.
I think our safety play has been unexpectedly sub-par this season, as they frequently take poor angles, miss tackles, and appear slow when trying to catch up to runners this season. Even Pitt's QB Voytik looked like he had world class speed breaking away from our secondary, which at the time I thought was very concerning to see.
That's exactly what we had -- the Mike linebacker and a safety were about 10 yards deep. There was one blocker to take on both of them. With several other defensive players in pursuit, all they had to do was delay the QB to keep it to a short gain. Unfortunately the Mike got caught on the wrong side of the blocker.
Bud explained the play after the game. He said they knew the QB would keep. He said that Andrew M got turned the wrong way, if he would have filed his gap correctly then they had a safety (probably Jarrett) coming over to help clean it up and they would have had to punt. Instead, M got out of position which opened it up for the QB to run it untouched.
Honestly, it was better that he scored. They could have almost run the clock out if he didn't score. We didn't have ant T O's left to stop the clock at that point, so hell, if they give up the 1st down let him score, at least you get the ball back with a chance to score and get the on sides.
I didn't like the decision to punt there. I know Frank trusts his D to get the ball back, but BC had run for over 200 yards on us up to that point in the game. Go for it on 4th and 5. It almost worked the Frank wanted it.
The way CFB had been rolling the dice (fake punt, going for it on 4th) I was really surprised he went conservative at that moment. I know 4th and 5 is completely different from 4th and 1, but I felt the game was on the line and going for it was the better choice.
Hey guys,
I am sooo happy you guys brought up this point. The last couple of years you would have never found a bigger Kyshoen and Bonner fan than me, I thought they were going to be great. I usually go to one game a year and thought Kyshoen was the MVP of the Pitt game last year, but I dont know what is going on with these guys this year. I was talking to my dad, I really feel like they were our number 1 weaknesses in the Pitt and BC game. If they had just played solid games we would still be talking about trying to win a coastal. And I dont think its just them I saw Riley miss on the gap on the long run by the RB against BC. But their inability to fill gaps, make tackles, and come up with the big plays (ints, fumbles, big hits) have really doomed up this year.
QUESTION THOUGH - I was at the game and I had a great view of the 3rd down play that BC had before they kicked the field goal to go up and I know for SURE corey marshall was held on that play. He beat the crap out of the lineman and the guy reaches across marshall's body and grabs his shoulder pad on the opposite side of his body. I was 60-70 rows up and on the 20 yard line on the opposite side of the field and I saw it, how does the ref not make the call there. If he does that puts them out of field goal range and we probably win, did anyone else see that? Maybe check the replay?
One other thing, how did we not get a hand on that Field Goal, that ball never got 20 yards off the ground, and somehow on the one they blocked, I really thought our guy did a great job of kicking it high, it seemed to go straight up when he kicked it, I sure miss it when those things use to go for us not against us.
A most under-estimated point. Of all the units that have "regressed" as the season has gone on, OLine and QB's get a lot of blame.
But on the whole, Safety play has fallen off the map.
Does anyone have numbers to support this? Based solely on anecdotal evidence I had thought the opposite, but I haven't exactly studied the issue.
No statistical evidence, but just on the "eye-test", it seems like the play has fallen off.
Bonner, who has always been contact adverse, seems even moreso. As a center fielder, you can't take bad angles in defense.
Kyshoen, who was always a big hitter, has gone from Blow you up, to whiffing on tackles. Compare his play in the Pitt home loss versus last year's road win.
Overall safety play has declined. Not numerically, but in Impact. The safety duo has 3 picks. Jarrett leads the team in total tackles. So numbers are there, but their play, for experienced Seniors, has not been impressive. Especially with the amount of pressure the front four has been getting.
Add in the loss of Facyson, who will tackle, that leaves Baby Fuller and Chuck Clark as tacklers in the backfield, and only fuller has true speed. So if a guy gets loose, if Fuller doesn't get him, no one will.
For me the true shame, is that DBU did not really have a next man up in terms of replacing Facyson & lacks safety depth.
I don't know about you, but if my eyes tell me one thing and the evidence tells me another, I ask myself if I've really paid close enough attention to trust my eyes. I know I notice every time a safety blows a play. I can't say I notice every time a safety makes a play. And even when I'm watching carefully, I sometimes blame one player for someone else's mistake.
Bud's defense makes it easy to ID the busted coverage. at least in the run game.
He always has a free hitter, and if that free hitter misses the tackle, then its off to the races. A Common theme against the likes of Duke Johnson, James Connor, etc. Jarrett had a particularly horrid tackling day against PITT. Whereas they made the hits against UNC or O State, they have not been recently.
However, in their defense, we have been weakened up the middle due to injuries. Losing Maddy and then Chase really hurt.
Kyshoen was starting to remind me of Ed reed, even more so after the OSU game. But yeah, that feeling has gone away. Hope he gets his edge back. (Although Ed reed whiffed on many a tackle too...that's what you get with big hitters)
DBU is a little out of whack this season.
More interceptions would be nice. Not sure if the lack of interceptions is a knock on the defense or a nod to the offenses we've played.
A lot of the lack of interceptions comes in having to play so much cover 0 and man coverage.
With no safeties deep you can't aggressively go after the ball and playing close man, you play the WR, not look into the backfield at what the QB is looking at.
I've held my tongue long enough. I'm convinced this is why we are losing:
SANDSTORM
That is not who we are. For years, I have made fun of opponents for that freakin' song. If you travel to road games, (cough, Clemson, cough) you'd hate that song as much as I do. If you are keeping score the past few seasons, what win has playing that song propelled us to? It seems that after that song is played we very frequently lose the lead, or pull a full Clemson.
For those who have forgotten, this is who we are:
Enter Sandman
It is bad karma to steal other teams traditions. It's just silly all around...and I hate that song.
I agree. Let's find another adrenaline song in the place of that one.
I know there have been many people calling for an up tempo Oregon-TCU-Baylor type offense because it seems to be the sexy way to put up points. But I think the offense needs to try to speed up because of the OL and its injuries. The line seems to only be able to block for two seconds so play action is not working. The run game is not seeing holes and doesn't have the speed to run outside. Run by screen pass and short quick throws and downfield posts, corners, out, any one-cut routes with shotgun or three step drops means the OL doesn't have to block as long. Part of coaching is scheming for success with the players you have and developing them into better players not necessarily only developing them into an offense.
Maybe some big time JuCo transfers for O-line rebuilding is a possible way to fill space in a hurry. Utah has done a masterful job of this. Whatever....great championship teams are built around the O-line and that is Stacey Searels' job, to recruit iron-thrashing giants with great footwork. Everything else after that falls into place. He hasn't proven his mettle so far and some of the angst of this board ought to be directed on his lame performance that falls grossly short of the hype he came in with. Here is the rub. Why do we settle for coaches on the way down in their careers instead of coaches on the way up?
Unfortunately Beamer is risk adverse in most of his decisions (or what he thinks is low risk). I am actually still in disbelief about the successful fake punt call last weekend even though we were down....
I'm not so sure you can say that. He went for it on 4th down 5 times including a fake punt. Everyone is saying that Beamer isn't changing with the times and he's being static but in the last 2 years he has overhauled his entire staff and has started making calls he NEVER would have made even 2-3 years ago.
Is the man stubborn? Absolutely. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone that has achieved his level of success that isn't stubborn. However being stubborn and unwilling to change and two different things. The change has happened and, as the games go along, seem to be continuing to happen.
Two years ago he replaced 60% of his Offensive Staff, but kept his son and the guy who was offensive coordinator for the previous 10 years. The fact that this is considered a "complete overhaul of his staff" by anyone really says it all about Frank Beamer and his willingness to change. :)
His son who was recently hired on the staff and gave a major recruiting boost? I get that people want to throw the nepotism card around but it's not like Shane didn't have a pretty good resume before he was hired. Is he the best RBs coach? No. He is a major recruiting upgrade over the guy he replaced though which was something we desperately needed.
Look I hated Stiney as the OC like the rest of you but you need to give the man some credit in the way he changed how we go about recruiting. Maybe the fact that both were retained speaks more to Frank evaluating the weaknesses at that time (read: recruiting) and figuring out ways to improve it than it does to this grand plan to handcuff all staff and run the team into the ground.
Not to mention that big guard that flipped from USCe to VT, Searels and Stiney were the recruiters.
I am coming around to this POV. Billy Hite was a great RB coach who hated what recruiting had become. He was also near the end of a long and successful career. He was replaced with a young coach with a great reputation as a recruiter who was not as good at coaching RBs. Stinespring, who had long been a good TE coach and a great recruiter, got a chance to prove himself at OC. It didn't go so well, so he was relieved of that duty but kept on staff to do what he does well. At the same time, loyal CFB guys who were not getting the job done as QB coach and WR coach were replaced with new blood.
Newsome was replaced with Grimes, and if Grimes had stayed, the OL might be in a better place right now. I don't think you can blame CFB for replacing Newsome with a revolving door, and it's probably not fair to blame Searles for the current state of the OL.
Bottom line, in the past three years CFB has completely overhauled the offensive staff. We won't see the results until Searles has a chance to get his job done. He hasn't proven himself yet, but he hasn't had a fair chance yet.
Also, staff changes always include a certain amount of trade-off. You don't get to replace just the bad parts of old guys with just the good parts of new guys. Those who want to replace CFB bear the burden of arguing that it's practical to replace him with someone better all around, not just someone with a different offensive philosophy. Those who want CFB to make further changes bear the burden of arguing that it's practical to get replacements that will not be three steps forward, two steps back.
You've changed the subject. All I'm asking is that we be intellectually honest with our characterizations. He let three guys go on a 5 man coaching staff, and demoted one of the two that stayed. The reasons why he did or didn't is a separate discussion. It doesn't change the point that it's a far cry from a "Complete Overhaul."
He made some reasonable changes to his staff while retaining 40% of the people on the previous one for various reasons, and he did so about 5 years too late. For Frank Beamer, this is considered a "Complete Overhaul." That's really my point. The dude doesn't like change. He will do anything in his power to not go through it. It's who he is for better or worse. I don't see how this is something that can be argued.
80% were changed in two years. 20% on year (Bringing Shane in) and 60% the next (Loefler, Woodhead, and Grimes). The only person who stayed is Stinespring who is regarded as a GOOD position coach and one of our best recruiters. 80% and changing the position of the 1 remaining person is a complete overhaul as far as I am concerned.
When you completely overhaul an engine you generally keep the block, head and usually the exhaust and intake manifolds.
To say replacing 80% of the staff and reassigning the remaining 20%, is not an overhaul, is to have an agenda to push.
If any company turned over 60% of their workforce in a one year period it'd be considered a complete overhaul. How is this any different?
The only thing different is that you are constantly trying to argue your point that Beamer is bad for the program now and trying to strech any facts, feelings, or general observations to fit that narrative. So, since you insist on doing this, you have the keys, how do you fix everthing?
This is not a point that I am "constantly trying to make." It's cool to engage in discussions about things without gross mis-characterizations like this.
We disagree on if replacing three coaches constitutes a "complete overhaul." You've stated why you think it does, I've stated why I think it doesn't. I don't understand why we can't just agree to have differing opinions and move on...
Once again I'm fine with not agreeing. My issue is your "Bendering" where you make a trollish comment, wait for a reply, and then start saying people are changing the subject or not answering your questions. You then hide behind the "we have different opinions man so move on" bs. It's a theme you've carried over for several weeks. I'd point some of this out in more detail but 1) I'm on my phone, 2) you don't care anyway.
Edit: I also noticed that you failed to answer my question. How would you fix everything?
I "started pulling the agree to disagree bs" because I was instructed by moderators to not post so much on here. I was encouraged by non-moderators to "let others enjoy the board." It's not BS, it's an effort to stem the cycle of "Nuh-unh!" "Yes-Huh" back and forth posting that becomes one of "those threads." Seriously what does it accomplish?
You stated that Frank Beamer Completely overhauled his offensive staff and that indicates that he's receptive to the notion of change. I replied that I disagreed with your characterization, and that replacing 3 coaches doesn't really constitute a "Complete Overhaul" and was in fact an indicator of the exact opposite conclusion and demonstrated his trademark resistance to change that we've come to know over the year.
Seriously, beyond that, what more is there to say? Where does the discussion go from there? I'm honestly asking you a question here. I honestly just disagree with you, that's not "trollish," it's disagreement. Trolling is being deliberately inflammatory in the interest of generating responses. This is not my intent at all. When I saw that this particular hole was going in "that" direction, I tried to end it amicably.
Seriously, what more do you want from me here? I'm honestly asking because the message coming across right now is "Never disagree with me." If that's the case, that's cool. There's a few people on here that I've simply stopped responding to for similar reasons. If that's something that would make this board better, it's something I can handle.
Since you asked and I have a few minutes, here it goes.
I said he just had a complete overhaul of the staff. You claim that you simply disagreed with my opinion which you didn't; you took a shot:
I rolled past it and stated my case, again, while addressing your comment about the people he retained and my thoughts on that to which you replied:
Again, a shot. I, as other as well, AM being intellectually honest about the characterization. Trying to say that anyone who thinks it's a complete overhaul is an idiot or one of lower intellect is a shot and trollish. Beyond that I never changed the subject, I continued to state my position.
I disagree with plenty of people on here on various opinions and rarely, if ever, have any issues having an open debate about it. Somehow in the last few weeks we've had this issue more than once (and you've had this issue with more than just me). What do I want from you? I want you to be able to enjoy the community just like I want for myself. Quite honestly I'd love to be able to have thoughtful debates with you (and anyone else) since we obviously are on different sides. At the end of the day my biggest issue with you is that seemingly any opinion to the contrary of your own you feel the need to respond to without even considering it. In this thread I offered a couple counter thoughts and you just rolled in your typical posting fashion. Perhaps you are just misunderstood, so let me ask you the following questions:
1) What would you consider an complete overhaul of a college football team's offensive coaching staff?
2) You like to talk about the issues, but what solutions do you have? How do you propose we fix them?
Also the "never disagree with me" is a hyperbole. I'm pretty sure I know who you are talking about and that is a very similar situation to this. If you decide that you don't want to engage certain people on here (as I have) then that's fine but don't act like a victim.
As four of the five coaches were replaced and the last one changed position, I guess his opinion of a complete overhaul would have included sacking Beamer. He sets the direction of the offense and made the hires.
That's not a "shot," I'm sorry. It was in no way intended to be a shot. There was even a bloody smiley face at the end. It was, at best, a jab about Frank Beamer. The world's most change-averse man. He fires 60% of his staff, and its credited as a "complete overhaul." To me, that's funny. Hence the smiley face. It was never, by any stretch of the imagination, intended to be a "shot" at you.
Well, this is a simple misunderstanding. I never, not once, said or implied that you were "an idiot or of lower intellect." Never. "Intellectually Dishonest" is a term that's been around for a while, I've been familiar with it for at least two decades. I assumed that it was ubiquitous, but it apparently isn't. When someone is being intellectually dishonest, it means they are intentionally mis-characterizing something. It is not a "shot" to the speaker, their intellect, or intelligence.
Without even considering what? i considered what you said, and I continued to disagree. At that point, It seemed we were at an impass and therefore I suggested that we agree to disagree. You called this "BS" and "Trollish."
I would consider a complete overhaul to mean firing 100% of the coaches. To me, the word "complete" means exactly that, anything less than 100% isn't "complete," It can't be by the very definition of the word.
At this point, we're kind of sleeping in the bed we've made, aren't we? Short of a time machine that can take us back 5 years, I'm not sure there's anything you can do. What would I have done 5 years ago is a subject probably better suited for its own thread, as opposed to buried deep in this one. For now, it's clear that Frank Beamer's going to do whatever the hell he wants for as long as he wants to. So we just kind of ride it out and hope for the best. I think that's literally all we have right now "hope that things get better somehow."
To me, that's not only a drag, it doesn't produce a lot to talk about.
That said, I post on these boards to have fun. I'm not trying to be a victim or anything. I'm trying to engage in discussion and have fun. Part of that means being flippant. There has to be some sort of middle ground here. The tagline is (paraphrased) "serious and not-so serious discussion of VT Athletics." Not every post or response has to be a Sheldonian dissertation on quantum burrito meals. It's cool to lighten up.
Geez Louise, I made a joke about Frank Beamer being a stubborn old man and it turned into...this. Should that have happened? There has to be a middle ground, right? People take disagreement way too personally here. I don't have anything against you personally, or Frye, or the guy with the QC code as his avatar, or anyone. A site-wide effort to lighten up in the light of a season like this would do everyone a lot of good, IMHO.
Great we've both had our say then and can move on. I guess your issue with the term "complete overhaul" was a literal one. Perhaps saying a major overhaul would be better? That term didn't change the context of my original point.
Also, if you look at my recent posts, I've been trying to lighten the mood around here which is most why I decided to even engage in this. Perhaps I'm a bit quick on the trigger but based off your posting history I felt the need to say what I said.
Either way, it's usually best to go with a meme or gif to lighten the mood :).
does it matter if retaining 2 coaches was the right thing to do? Or did you just want a 100% overhaul for overhaul's sake?
His son was an early part of the changeout, Hite only left a year before the offense he overhauled and the OC he kept is not the OC but a TE coach, that's quite a change.
Other than the fact that he was let go with the rest of Mack Brown's staff at UT, what makes you believe he is on the downward trajectory of his career? The guy hasn't even had a full year with the program and you're already questioning his abilities as an O-line coach?
Look, you are not alone when it comes to being frustrated with the on-field performance of our team. But let's at least be reasonable. BTW, doing a quick google search on Coach Searels makes me believe he will figure the O-line out. Give the guy at least three years.
did anyone else notice this guy from the TKP Picture gallery?
BTW, the mood of the board is not a reflection of the team's record so much as it is a reflection of the lack of GIFTORYs!!!
more memes and gifs please.
Frank is not a fan of the tuxspeedo.
Some people wave different keys.