What does all that mean? The screens, if viewed as an extension of the running game, are effective enough, though they're not a substitute for throwing the ball down the field and certainly won't be endeared by a fan base rankled by Tech's dink-and-dunk approach.
THIS. thanks Andy
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I'd like to see the stats on where the screens leave us. For instance, we throw the screens only on 1st and 2nd down. If we throw it on 1st down then we're left with 2nd and 5 or 6 (or maybe 2nd and 9 or 10 with a pre-snap penalty, but I'm not going there). Not bad. Second down WR screen attempts are what's really interesting to me. What sort of yardage are we left with on 3rd, given that it doesn't get the first down. How many times have we gotten a first down with the screens? Let's say that the RB gets stuffed behind the line of scrimmage on 1st down - do we ever run the WR screen with 10+ yards to gain for the first down?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Just from a cursory glance, WR screens on first down left us in 2nd and 4-6 (pretty good) while screens on second down left us in 3rd and 4-5 (not good). I don't believe we've gotten a first down on a WR screen, at least not in the past two weeks... Interesting point.
Honestly I was surprised to see that the average was even as high as 3.7, given how poorly that we've blocked them this year (and really since Boykin and Coale left). Personally, I'm not a huge fan of running them on 1st and goal or on 2nd and long, but perhaps that's just me.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Screens, work fairly well with adequate wr blocking , without this blocking not so much. However we have ran so many & on 1st& 2nd down I expect one to be picked soon.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Plays also tend to work better when the other team, the fans and the TV announcers do not know what is coming. Our inability to have any legit deep threat is also not helping matters....
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think a lot of the screens are package plays, so if the D is aligned expecting pass then we run.. and vice versa, so theoretically if they are expecting screen they won't get it
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
AB, since as of today, the RT has gone to a pay-per-view status like the rest of Berkshire papers, if I click on this will that count towards my 'maximum of 25 articles viewed in 30 days at no charge' total?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
So will you link the Pilot site in the future so as to make the information more user friendly? Or do we need to go through the process of cut/paste, blah blah blah in order to not burn all our RT views on this? Is the Pilot site also owned by Berkshire? If so, when will they begin charging for the content?
There's not much the RT offers that interests me outside of sports, but there are 4-5 times a month I'd like to be able to read it without getting toasted for the price of a daily paper subscription.
Thanks for the info...
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I won't link the Pilot, since I don't technically work there (it's still owned by Landmark, so they get my stuff through a deal with the RT). And Norfolk already has a paywall. It just doesn't show up for the general blog. Specific posts, yes, but not the main site. Which is an oversight on their part that I'm not worried about bringing to anyone's attention.
Like I said before, I think the paywall shouldn't be too tough to get around. Clearing your cookies usually does it. Opening a page in incognito mode in Google Chrome usually does the trick too.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Comments
Andy - are you seriously going to interject numbers in a debate as emotionally-charged as this one?
Seriously, AB, we've been getting along just fine yelling at each other without statistical evidence. Why would you do this to us?
THIS. thanks Andy
I'd like to see the stats on where the screens leave us. For instance, we throw the screens only on 1st and 2nd down. If we throw it on 1st down then we're left with 2nd and 5 or 6 (or maybe 2nd and 9 or 10 with a pre-snap penalty, but I'm not going there). Not bad. Second down WR screen attempts are what's really interesting to me. What sort of yardage are we left with on 3rd, given that it doesn't get the first down. How many times have we gotten a first down with the screens? Let's say that the RB gets stuffed behind the line of scrimmage on 1st down - do we ever run the WR screen with 10+ yards to gain for the first down?
Just from a cursory glance, WR screens on first down left us in 2nd and 4-6 (pretty good) while screens on second down left us in 3rd and 4-5 (not good). I don't believe we've gotten a first down on a WR screen, at least not in the past two weeks... Interesting point.
Honestly I was surprised to see that the average was even as high as 3.7, given how poorly that we've blocked them this year (and really since Boykin and Coale left). Personally, I'm not a huge fan of running them on 1st and goal or on 2nd and long, but perhaps that's just me.
I'm in favor of running them when the work and not in favor of running them when they don't work.
Screens, work fairly well with adequate wr blocking , without this blocking not so much. However we have ran so many & on 1st& 2nd down I expect one to be picked soon.
Plays also tend to work better when the other team, the fans and the TV announcers do not know what is coming. Our inability to have any legit deep threat is also not helping matters....
I think a lot of the screens are package plays, so if the D is aligned expecting pass then we run.. and vice versa, so theoretically if they are expecting screen they won't get it
Agree, but if you have no running game & cannot run the football & no vertical passing game , what do you do offensively? Punt on 3rd down.
AB, since as of today, the RT has gone to a pay-per-view status like the rest of Berkshire papers, if I click on this will that count towards my 'maximum of 25 articles viewed in 30 days at no charge' total?
Yes it will. Although I'm fairly confident this paywall won't be hard to circumvent.
Also, the same material doesn't hit a paywall restriction on the Pilot site if you don't click on specific posts:
http://hamptonroads.com/blogs/andy-bitter
So will you link the Pilot site in the future so as to make the information more user friendly? Or do we need to go through the process of cut/paste, blah blah blah in order to not burn all our RT views on this? Is the Pilot site also owned by Berkshire? If so, when will they begin charging for the content?
There's not much the RT offers that interests me outside of sports, but there are 4-5 times a month I'd like to be able to read it without getting toasted for the price of a daily paper subscription.
Thanks for the info...
I won't link the Pilot, since I don't technically work there (it's still owned by Landmark, so they get my stuff through a deal with the RT). And Norfolk already has a paywall. It just doesn't show up for the general blog. Specific posts, yes, but not the main site. Which is an oversight on their part that I'm not worried about bringing to anyone's attention.
Like I said before, I think the paywall shouldn't be too tough to get around. Clearing your cookies usually does it. Opening a page in incognito mode in Google Chrome usually does the trick too.
I honestly dont mind the WR screen, it can very effective. My problem is the number of times we run it. We aren''t fooling any defense
Fire Andy Beamer! :-)