I didn't really say much while walking out of Lane Stadium Saturday afternoon. I listened to the people walking beside me, opining on the state of the football program — or more importantly, the state of Frank Beamer. My brother-in-law was discussing the perceived downward spiral Michael Brewer has been mired in for the last six weeks. Some guy to my right was screaming about how long it has been since he has seen a Hokie team look this poor. We're all beginning to sound like broken records.
It was a depressing environment to be in. I have so many memories of walking down the ramps beneath the east stands following a big victory and taking part in a never-ending chorus of, "Let's Go!" and, "HOKIES!" For the third straight week, the same ramps were relatively silent, filled only with bursts of opinions and frustration.
The week before Saturday's game, I was preoccupied with two thoughts: how many layers would I need to wear to be sufficiently warm and dry throughout the game, and how was our smaller defensive line going to be able to handle four quarters of the Boston College rushing attack and their hogmollies up front? It turned out the weather was drier and more mild than predicted and the Hokie defense did a phenomenal job standing up the Eagles' rushing attack, short of two big plays that cost the Hokies dearly.
Week-after-week, despite periods of utter domination, we continue to see many of the same back-breaking lapses. I honestly cannot recall a season that saw this many long touchdown plays. BC quarterback Tyler Murphy's 57-yard fourth quarter touchdown run right up the middle epitomized the 2014 Hokies' season. It's hard not to see the Hokies as Norm MacDonald in "Dirty Work" — just when you had thought you had taken care of business, the opponent jumps out and punches you right in the gut.
I tried to take advantage of the end of daylight savings and use that extra hour of sleep to digest everything that I have seen from this football team and everything I have heard from coaches, players, media personalities and fans. Needless to say, my brain feels like the most depressing bowl of Jell-O ever. It is probably vegetable flavored, with various types of produce frozen in suspended animation. I ended up having three takeaways that I feel comfortable discussing at this point in the season.
1. After Nine Games, I am Completely Flummoxed by this Offense
Saturday was my first opportunity to watch this team up-close this season. Nothing beats seeing all 22 players simultaneously, and I felt like I had a clearer picture of offensive coordinator Scot Loeffler's system after the BC game.
Loeffler utilized a series of quick/packaged screens to various players, peppering in high percentage throws across the middle. Michael Brewer did a phenomenal job of slipping out of would-be sacks and extending plays with his feet. Despite Brewer's 345 yards passing and 64% completion percentage, the offense looked skittish and struggled to find and maintain rhythm over four quarters. The scoring drives involved a lot of hurry-up, and you could see the players thrive off of the energy of the crowd. After a week of watching film and reading French's assessment of the clear ways in which the Hokie offense could attack the BC secondary, I was miffed by the lack of ten-yard outs and comeback routes.
With all of the peaks and valleys the offense experienced on Saturday, two things stuck out to me:
1) This season has seen an inordinate number of drives begin inside of Tech's own 5-yard line. How many of those drives resulted in a Virginia Tech score? Better yet, how many of those drives resulted in a first down?
Time and again, this team gets backed up against the goal line and severely struggles to execute. Some drives see three consecutive runs for little gain; others see three consecutive passes that fail to move the sticks. Some blame can be placed on conservative play calling, but that is to be expected given the circumstances. What is most troubling is the ease in which opposing defenses appear to push around the Hokie offense, ostensibly out-willing them at the point of attack and forcing a quick punt. On Saturday it killed the early momentum established by the offense's initial scoring drive, allowing the BC offense to climb back into the game.
2) Scot Loeffler utilized an interesting formation on a number of occasions, splitting out Ryan Malleck and Bucky Hodges wide to the field side of the formation. More often than not, BC would line-up man-to-man, with a safety over-the-top aligned to the inside of the slot receiver 15 to 20 yards off the line of scrimmage. Both Malleck and Hodges physically outmatched the Eagles corners, none of whom were larger than 6-1 and 190 lbs.
Even though one of the Hokie tight ends essentially had a one-on-one matchup on each play, by my count, Brewer only looked their way two times: One was a quick screen to Hodges, while the other hit Hodges on an in-route that resulted in a touchdown. We have seen Hodges outrun some of the fastest corners in college football, and against the Eagles he had the upper hand in virtually every matchup; however, play-after-play we saw the ball go in another direction. During a game in which the Hokies had a ton of goal line chances, they once again neglected to attempt a fade route to Hodges.
We have discussed this ad nauseum this season: The Hokies finally have a number of playmakers at their disposal, but it seems as though they struggle to put it all together on a consistent basis. Is the lack of execution a coaching issue? Is Brewer failing to recognize the matchups and make the requisite pre-snap adjustments? Is there dysfunction amongst the coaching staff that is seriously impacting the identity of this system? Is it a little bit of everything?
After a game in which we saw the offense achieve a decent level of success, I still walked away confused as to how they gained the yardage they did.
2. Andrew Motuapuaka Looks to be the Next Great Mike Linebacker
Redshirt Freshman linebacker Andrew Motuapuaka was forced into action late against Pittsburgh because of a severe injury to fifth year senior Chase Williams. Moto — we're going to go with "Moto" because, well, his last name is a pain to repeatedly say and write — made back-to-back impact plays, leading many to claim he was ready to step in and make an immediate impact. One week later against an athletic Miami offense, Moto crashed back down to Earth, struggling along with the rest of the Hokie defense to contain Duke Johnson.
Against Boston College, Moto was everywhere. It became a running joke in my section, as his name was called after almost every play. Moto finished with 14 tackles, including 0.5 for a loss. It was by no means a perfect game, but he showed that with a little bit more game experience learning how to attack his gap and another off-season in the weight room, he has the look of an impact player in the middle for this Hokie defense.
3. This Will Be the Most Important Recruiting Class in Frank Beamer's Career
For all of the talk regarding Frank Beamer's future as the head coach of the Hokies, it is easy to forget the recruiting class this team may ultimately finish with. With highly rated prospects still very much in play, the Hokies could turn things around immediately if they can close strong between now and national signing day. After consecutive strong classes that have seen an influx of talented freshman on both sides of the football, this year's class has a number of guys in Josh Sweat, Tim Settle and Jalen Dalton that could potentially step in and play right away.
We have seen numerous programs right the ship after a series of down years thanks to a few highly successful classes. Jimbo Fisher and Florida State were able to stop the slow decline that marked the end of Bobby Bowden's tenure by bringing in elite prospects like Telvin Smith, Christian Jones, LaMarcus Joyner and Bjoern Werner and pairing them with established upperclassmen. Hugh Freeze and Ole Miss used Robert Nkemdiche's commitment to lure a number of top prospects (including Laremy Tunsil and Laquon Treadwell) and re-define a program that had become known more for their tailgating atmosphere and the coeds in the stands.
Entering the 2014 season, we were all well aware of the adversity this young team faced in attempting to fill the void left by multiple sub-par recruiting classes prior to the most recent staff shake-up. We have seen more than 11 true freshmen take the field in consecutive seasons, illustrating the weakness of those classes and proving that Coach Beamer is no longer afraid to throw young players into the fire.
Before you retort with something along the lines of, "And how is that working out up in Charlottesville," keep in mind that Coach Beamer's staff is not Mike London's. This program was built on the staff's ability to cultivate potential and maximize talent. But as we have seen over the last few years, that approach can only get you so far in today's college football landscape. A top-10 recruiting class doesn't necessarily cure all ills, but when paired with the existing talent and this coaching staff, there is a high probability that this program can get back over the hump and return to it's past level of sustained success.
As I noted earlier, I have a lot of questions I hope to see answered over the last three or four games. This program has a lot to prove as they close out the season, both to themselves and the fan base. The Hokies will enjoy a much-needed break before beginning the stretch run against defending Coastal champion Duke on November 15. After three gut wrenching losses at home, let's hope this program takes better advantage of the week off than they did the first time around in early October.
Comments
Had to sleep a few nights on it after the dismal season we are putting together?
I'm with yaa bud
About the field position comment - I am reminded of the constant mantra drum beat over the last several years by Frank & his messengers that 'Beamerball is not about punt blocks any longer. Now we're focused on punt returns & field position'. Because, you know, a punt block fifteen yards behind the line of scrimmage is inferior to a punt return forty yards past the line of scrimmage. Only now, we're downing those punts with no hint of a return and no hint of momentum changing like a punt block automatically creates and we're proving we can't do either one - block punts or return them. So... crickets on the Beamerball focus front, I guess.
See, it's not one big thing, it's a lot of little things...
Its worth noting that our Special Teams have been very good this year by all metrics, a massive improvement over the last two years. Stroman is a much more dynamic punt returner than the Byrn/Kyshon combo last year, our coverage units have been spectacular and Slye and AJ have been solid. Obviously, our KO return is not good, but, otherwise, our ST's are much improved.
So is it just bad luck that we have such an inordinate amount of starts in the (-10) territory? Or is that even true? We certainly haven't done anything with it offensively when it has happened, which makes our (-10) starts stand out.
But we've probably saved significant yards in field position per game with the significant improvement of the coverage units and the improvement in the punt return game.
Slye and Hughes have been terrible. Slye is kicking below 70% on the year and cant even get the ball to the 10 on a kickoff. AJ Hughes as arguably shanked more balls than he's kicked straight. Stroman and coverage have been really the only positives on our ST
From Hokiesports.com:
Punting:
2013 - Avg. punt yd 44.2, net 37.3
2014 - Avg. punt yd 41.7, net 39.6
Result: AJ is hitting them higher by request and our net yardage is better as a result of improved coverage, afforded by the time provided by the higher kick.
Field goals:
2013 - 15/26 for 57.6%
2014 - 13/19 for 68.4%
Result - 2014 is better. True, we don't have a kicker like Aguayo who is basically a lock to make anything, but Slye is a true freshman and most of his misses have been from longer range, IIRC. He will get better and stronger.
Kickoffs:
2013 - Avg. yardage 61.8, 17 touchbacks (1.3 per game), 52.5 net yards
2014 - Avg. yardage 60.3, 13 touchbacks (1.4 per game), 52.9 net yards
Result: push.
I think Slye's only misses inside of 40 yards have been blocked. I can live with that from a freshman kicker. Makes me wonder why Santamaria is on scholarship and Slye isn't.
2 things for the 2 above posts:
1) The play of our gunners this year compared to last year is day/night, and the impact of those guys playing much better can't be overstated.
2) The coaches basically offered Santamaria before they saw just how well Slye and Wise were kicking their senior years. I know that Wise at least would have been offered if he had hit his 55-yarder against Radford a couple weeks earlier.
THIS^^. You could argue that ST lost us the game. Blocked FG, muffed kickoff, and AJ's shank. Although I had a bad feeling when we decided to punt on 4th down that late in the game. Yes, traditionally, that is the right call (CFB philosophy), but at that point in the game I trusted our offense to convert just as much, if not more, than I did our defense to get the stop. Hindsight is 20-20 though.
Can you imagine the outcry if we had gone for it in our own territory with a narrow lead and not converted?
Oh, I know, absolutely. I am not really criticizing the call, but I just had that feeling, you know. Along those same lines, remember against Pitt, backed up against goal line and the outcry that we attempted three passes in a row. Against BC we ran three run plays. Whatever call the coaches make in these type of scenarios, there will always be an outcry from some faction of the fan base when things don't turn out right.
That's why I am never too critical of CFB or the rest of the staff. But 30-45 seconds less in that 4th down situation and it becomes closer to a 50-50 call.
What they called a shank was actually a 50 yard punt that the wind carried out of bounds. The punt was a thing of beauty, just out of bounds.
True, shank is likely the wrong term. He was probably aiming for sideline to prevent return and just pushed it. Combined with wind...
That defensive offside penalty (on Di Nardo?) was brutal as well.
Did you see the wind up high. There's a reason these guys started kicking worm burners.
One of Sly's kickoffs practically stopped in midair at about the 30 and dropped like a rock. It was heading right into a stiff wind that started up high after he kicked.
The wind was fast at altitude and it took that punt on a joy ride to the border.
This times one thousand. What a lot of people in my section and on boards don't seem to realize is that winds are different higher up. If you watched the flags on the stadium they were being blown all over the place.
The wind was absolutely insanse at higher altitudes trust me I've seen the charts. If you want more evidence watch the clouds. Ever seen a day where its not to windy at the surface but the clouds are zinging by? That's called vertical wind shear and it happened again on Saturday
Not trying to be a sarcastic jerk but i do love archer and felt like this was an appropriate reaction for me at some of the fans in my section and I doubt any of them are on here..
In other news whose pumped for the new season in January??!
Definitely noticed that. At one point, the flags on the goalposts were blowing opposite directions at the same time (both away from the middle of the field. Essentially, a kicker trying a FG either way would have been kicking with the wind). Ridiculous.
Everyone who's spent a few winters walking across the drillfield knows that in Blacksburg the prevailing wind is in your face. If you're walking north, it's in your face. If you're walking south, it's in your face. If two people are walking toward each other, the wind is in both their faces.
I have to laugh, because that really is the truth. I used to wear a knit cap & scarf wrapped all the way around my head, like I was climbing Everest or something, and still shivered afterwards like a Mo Fo while sitting in McBryde 100.
Ah yes. I remember training for track season during the winter on Long Shop road. Snow blowing into my face, roughing up my skin on the out loop. Snow blowing into my face, roughing up my skin on the back loop.
When I lived in an apartment behind Stadium Woods and walked to class on some winter days my hair would freeze before I got to class. Also, the gap between O'Shaugnessy and Johnson is an insane wind tunnel!
Agree though I believe Hughes is looking for more hang time vrs distance.
Actually, that is not only wrong, but it is a complete reversal of the truth - if you understand how I'm avoiding using a certain word.
Punt Returns
EDIT - 2015/current bowl season - we're 56th with a 8.33 return average
2014 - we're 105th in the nation with 4.68 return average
2013 - we were 36th in the nation with 10.32 return average
2012 - we were 30th with 10.77 return average
2011 - we were 20th with 12.43 return average
Punt Return Coverage
EDIT - we're 13th with a punt return average of 3.52 yards
2014 - we're 106th with a punt return average of 11.64 yards
2013 - we were 46th with a punt return average of 6.95 yards
2012 - we were 8th with a punt return average of 4.12 yards
2011 - we were 12th with a punt return defense average of 5.0 yards
Anybody see a trend downward?
See, we can sit back & pretend we've got no problems. Or, we could actually take off the O&M Frank apologist glasses and discuss the reality. We could 'completely reverse the truth' and claim we are better than ever - woo hoo! - or... we could discuss the reality.
The reality is that Frank Beamer failed to evolve his special teams approach after the '99-'00 era team, and gave away his ST secrets to the rest of the nation. He then failed to evolve like the rest of the coaching nation. We now have ST weakness, along with lots of other weaknesses. Why? Because Frank Beamer failed to admit he needs to evolve - which means CHANGE with the times. And Frank's apologists continue to 'reverse the truth' and say we're 'pretty good' or even 'better than ever'.
We're 4-5, and 1-4 in the weakest division in the ACC.
EDITED - to own the calc error, but I'll stick with my point. We're not what we were.
Where did these numbers come from? Cause the ones for 2014, just from the eye test, seem off.
His years are shifted. The stats for 2014 are from 2013, 2013 from 2012, etc. Per cfbstats.com, in 2014 we are ranked 57th with an average 8.33 yd/return. We are 13th in coverage with 3.52 yd allowed/return.
Here's where my numbers are sourced - the NCAA website. I figured it would be official. If I am erring, I'd appreciate someone linking the 2014 stats for me.
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/2014/team/462/p3
EDIT - Found my error - the NCAA site considers the bowls when determining the years. Thus 2014 numbers include the bowl season ending in January 2014.
That kinda blows up most of your original post, then, seeing from the numbers how much we've improved since last season.
Look at the seasons included, 2010 - 2015 bowl seasons. None of that even factors in the loss of punt blocking, either.
What I see is how far off the table we fell last season compared to those prior. I know one improved season (now) doesn't completely reverse a trend, but it provides more optimism than pessimism. To me, at least.
Also, 13th nationally in punt coverage is EXCELLENT, I don't care who you compare it to.
All I know is things had gotten so bad, every time A J Hughes has stepped on the field for a year and a half I have said out loud, "thank God for A J Hughes." He's not the best punter in the FBS by a long shot, but does anyone else remember what an adventure punting was just a short time ago?
As others have pointed out, Beamerball was 90% about market inefficiency. Everyone should have known it was unsustainable. The demise of Beamerbal has nothing to do with CFB "failing to evolve."
I don't know enough about special teams to run an x's and o's breakdown, but I know that even the best schemes need talent. The first place our poor recruiting hit was special teams because the players on it just weren't that good. Beamer tried to counter that by putting more starters back in, but he decided several years ago that's not a best practice in today's football. Now that we're starting to have talented depth again, we're seeing improvement in special teams play with Motuapuaka, Strohman, DiNardo, and others.
Like I said in the beginning, I don't know about schemes, so you could be right that Beamer's philosophies and coaching are outdated and ineffective regardless of talent. My point is that the special teams of 2012-13 were a far cry from the special teams throughout the 2000s.
Hi. New guy jumping in the thread. I picked this spot be cause I'm curious.
Have we won or lost more games on ST play since 2008? (That's where I felt a significant decline in ST started)
Hello and welcome!
I think it's hard to make any sort of absolute declaration about ST "winning" or "losing" games for us. A win or loss is a team effort. Sure, you can say "Oh if we had made that FG we would have won," but what if the offense had been good enough to punch in the TD? Never would have been in that place. "Man, kickoff returns have been awful for field position." But shouldn't the defense be allowing fewer scores so there would be fewer kickoffs to receive? I just think the game is too multi-dimensional to attribute wins or losses to ST. Sometimes close games do come down to one play, but they're few and far between, and again you can always go back to other phases of the game being unsuccessful in some way, because there's rarely perfection.
I hear what you're saying 6-string-master, but there are a whole lot of shirts, bumper stickers, & the like that say "Beamer Ball", which everyone knows is based on ST play. The commentators used to talk about how CFB used to win so many games on ST.
I used to see us win a lot of games with blocked punts, FG's, PAT's and returns.
After 2007, it seemed to me that we lost more games in which we were the recipients of such rather than the givers.
I just thought someone might have a stat on that facet of the game.
If you take a more macro view of it, yes, we've been in decline since the heyday of Beamerball, and that contributes to changes in what we have to do to win. In that sense, yes, there is a decline, but it's still not as cut and dry as winning vs. losing based on ST.
In terms of blocked kicks, we're way down over the last decade or so. That's largely a function of the changing college game. Beamer changed the calculus by using different tactics and personnel, then the rest of the country figured out how to counter. Right now, his preferred M.O. is to set up a better punt return rather than going for the block. We're on the upswing after an abysmal 2013 campaign in that regard. You can get a huge momentum swing on a blocked kick, but they're very hard to get now that everyone uses a 3-man shield (no jumping allowed!) or rugby-style punts with a mobile punter.
As Frank himself defines it, he likes to think of Beamerball as setting up any unit (offense, defense, ST) to score. Now, as far as punts go, his view is that a return TD is much more likely than a block returned for TD. Defense, of course we always love a pick-six or sack-fumble-TD. Offense, well...under construction?
This year we're happy to beat a William and Mary or a Western Michigan, but not long ago we considered a game a "success" if our defense scored more points than teams like that.
I would agree with some of this and not others. Our "improvement" in 2014 on ST's is largely rooted in a truly atrocious 2013. We were 106th on Phil Steele's rankings. We are 73rd now.
But I'm not sure this clearly defines a systemic problem. In 2012, we were 37th. In 2010, we were 6th.
Special teams play has evolved greatly. Obviously, blocked kicks are basically nonexistent today. I'd like to see the data on punt/KO returns as well. It's become a lot more nuanced. People say that Beamer has lost his ST's mojo, but it has just evolved with the rest of the NCAA. Its important we have a good kicker, which I think we will for the next three years. We need good net punting. We need good coverage teams. But our chance to make a play is on punt returns (KO returns, since you get it on the 25, should really be reconsidered. It's not worth it to return at all)
one problem is when you start inside the 10 and go 3 and out and then punt it our D comes up with a big stop allowing no points time after time despite the opposing teams starting field position said team just punts it right back to the same spot and the trend continues until the D gives up points. teams arent affraid to go ahead and punt it away and try and pin us deep instead of going for 4th and shorts or kicking long field goals.
I no longer have faith in CFB. He needs to retire. The fact that we keep having all the substitution, delay of game, too many men on the field etc. penalties and dumb, game-breaking mistakes is a testament to his lack of focus (which trickles down through the coaching staff and players) and commitment to this team. I'd like him to retire but I fear we will keep getting good recruits resulting in his continued belief that , "this is the year" while continuing the failures of the last 3 years.
We really haven't had those penalties for the last three games.
You can't use logic or facts with someone that's already made their mind up about something. They can't see past one weekend or one season. I'm glad administrators and coaches don't think the way fans think. If they did, VT would've had 15 different coaches over the last 10 years.
lol at this. I've been saying this for years, and people are finally understanding Beamer's shortcomings as shown in his team's performance the last 3 years. The last true NC contending team Tech had was with Bryan Randall.....
I usually LOL at folks that have an expectation of any team to be a true NT contender every year. Those people are normally very grumpy and want to see everyone fired a lot.
Well the fact that Tech hasnt come remotely close to being NC contenders in over 10 years is actually a legitimate issue
Well some might say that a Sugar Bowl appearance is "remotely close" but I can probably name you about 45 or 50 successful programs that haven't been remotely close to a NC game in the last 10 years. Being a National Title contender is a little more difficult than a lot of people think it is. And a whole lot of good teams never get there.
We were ranked 11th going into that game and had just gotten blown out by Clemson in the ACC Champ. We weren't even the best team in our conference let alone the nation.
Do you know how many teams have won a National Title? Ever? Do you know how many teams have played in a National Championship Game? I do. And I'm telling you that it's not as common as you seem to think it is. I live in Alabama and have spent most of my adult life living in the Deep South. Even LSU, Auburn, and Alabama fans (the ones with a little sense) understand how hard it is for any team to have that kind of success every year. Or even be close to it. I'm sorry to say but Virginia Tech isn't in the same club as Alabama, Auburn, or LSU. Not even close to it. So why do so many VT fans seem to have this expectation that we are entitled to that sort of success? Why? Because of the superior talent that Virginia produces over these states down here? Or is it because our athletic department has so much more money? You can want Frank Beamer gone and the rest of the coaching staff. I'm not saying you're wrong for that. But I'm telling you that Virginia Tech will never be a national title contender every year. They will not come close to being a national title contender every year. I don't care who is on the coaching staff. And any fan that believes they will have that level of success has very unrealistic expectations.
SEC......we cheat
We finished #3 in the BCS in 2007. We also finished just outside the top 10 in 2009-2011 (#11, #13, #11). True, that isn't contending for a NC, but it isn't the same as being a bad team. It's been 3 years since we won the Coastal and 4 since we won the ACC (including this year). In fact, our ACC record last year was the same as 2008 when we won the conference championship.
That's not 10 years of futility, that's 3 bad seasons. Sure, that's a trend and one that needs to be addressed (and is why we hired a new offensive staff in 2013, which some would consider addressing the issue), but don't overstate things in order to prove your point, all that does is diminish what could otherwise be a valid argument.
Just to play Devil's Advocate:
In those games where we were getting the substitution, delay of game penalties could just be due to the fact that we are using so many freshmen players at the skill position. i.e. we are going through some hellish growing pains this season, where there might be potential for payoff next season. I am still not entirely sure if we see improvement next year or not from the team, but we cannot just completely discount the fact that the potential is there.
Also, I would like for the VT fanbase/community to come to terms with the reality that sometime in the future, CFB will stop coaching at VT. I mean the guy isn't immortal, right? It is inevitable and we should at least have a succession plan in place. IMHO, planning for the future is a legitimate topic for discussion, without the need for people to go after each other, no matter where one comes down on the topic.
1. I believe Whit has a plan and is smart enough to keep it very hush hush.
1a. That plan is adaptable, but would remain essentially intact.
2. He has had conversations with Frank already that touched on this topic and those conversations helped shape his plan.
3. I agree that this is a legitimate topic, but the constant gnashing of teeth and soap box speeches (by a minority fan base) are tangential spurious noise which Whit, the University Staff, and the football coaching staff will pay tepid attention to ... at best - for the remainder of this season.
4. The signature statement by someone else on this thread from Herm Edwards is completely valid. Whit understands this.
5. The coaching staff will game plan and scheme based on our opponent game to game and react to VT's evolving character. [I do think we should do more hurry up and use the pass to open up the run game, within this premise.]
Carry On (a few in freak out panic mode).
EDIT: I agree with a large majority of your post.
I don't know when CFB plans to retire but it will be between September 10, 2016, and September 17, 2021.
Bet there were a lot of people saying the same thing in 1992. I know there were people saying it about Bud Foster in 2003. Thank God none of us is the Virginia Tech AD, or we might not have been to a bowl game since the Reagan administration...
You should change the name of this article to "Went into a coma" over it: Boston College.
I think #3 will determine if Beamer is here past 2016.
the most pertinent question about our starting position is this: of the times have we started with the ball at our own ten (or worse), how many of those times did the other team put up points on their ensuing possession after getting a short field?
True, but what's happening is our opponent is making enough first downs that they are within punt range of our 5 yard line and good punting puts our team starting inside the 10, 5, 1 yard line.
There was a time when if the Hokies won the toss they elected to defer to the 2nd half because the defense would come out and most teams would go 3 and out. Assuming they start on their 25 yard line and gain 9 yards on 3 plays then they are punting from their own 34 yard line. A 41 yard punt and the ball is coming down on our 25 yard line. It's a no brainer for the punt returner, he doesn't think he catches the ball and goes off to the races.
When the ball comes down inside the 10 yard line then the punt returner must think ... do i catch the ball and get tackled on the 5, or worse i fumble, or do i let this one go, perhaps into the end zone? Unfortunately, they have not been going into the end zone. They get covered inside the 5 yard line.
It happens
The decision was made easy this week. On most of the punts downed inside the 5 we didn't have a returner back.
This past week? Twice, both TD passes. Interestingly enough, on both of those scoring drives BC started no closer than midfield.
We only gave them two short fields all day, and they only scored on one (a FG after the Newsome muffed KO return). But none of those short fields were due to the offense, for better or worse.
This was one of those things that made me question my sanity. Watching the game it seemed like BC started every drive in field goal range, and about half of them in the red zone. I looked it up yesterday and saw what you saw -- their field position was substantially better than ours (37 vs 25), but not nearly as good as I felt it was. Another reason not to trust the eyes when there are data available.
If you have the ball inside your own 10 and a 1st and ten, odds are the other team will score before you do.
That's not a hit on our team, that's football.
This is probably the most bewildering season I have seen. We have lots of young playmakers and sufficient overall talent to be better than our record, but the lack of consistency is maddening.
Injuries have certainly played a big part, but that is part of the game and a team has to have others step up when injuries happen. The two things that stand out to me that are different from all those great Hokie teams of the past are 1) Absolutely no running game 2) The defense is consistently giving up multiple long plays every game - a lead late in the 4th quarter is not a gimme anymore.
The 1st is largely on the OL and some on play calling, I don't know what to make of the 2nd. In any event the team is still competing and I think they will be bowl eligible. I also think they will be much better next year especially if Shai and/or Trey comes back 100% and we can nail a couple of those big recruits that are still out there. GO HOKIES, FINISH STRONG!!!
Makes me think of this wonderful 1993 classic of a film, Surf Ninjas.
Why would anyone abbreviate a beautiful name like Matuapuaka?
Matuapuaka, what a wonderful phrase
Matuapuaka, ain't no passing craze
It means no worries for the rest of your days
It's our problem free philosophy, Matuapuaka
Here's my thing: I'm seeing this a lot. It feels like people are investing a lot in people who not only not here, but haven't even committed to coming here yet. Perhaps this is just my inherent negativity, but it feels like "closing strong" isn't something we have ever really been good at. Not even recently given our increased focus on recruiting. When we get the really highly rated guys, it always feels like they commit well in the summer before the season. When it comes down to later in the process, it feels at least like we lose out often. Again, perhaps I'm totally mistaken in this perception...
But I can't feel like the statement "If we can just reel in these elite Defensive Line Players who seem to favor us, it will be the best recruiting class ever!" is a statement I've heard before, and then everyone is all confused when they just end up at Alabama or wherever on Signing Day. At what point are we in a Charlie Brown/Lucy with the football situation, and why would this year be any different?
This whole year has been different.
When has Beamer not had a mobile QB?
When has Bud's defense given up this many big plays?
When has DBU not had viable depth?
When has VT not had a bellcow TB?
When has VT only won 1 home game?
When has VT pass blocked better than they run blocked?
When has VT played this many freshmen?
When has VT played a transfer QB?
The answers to all the questions are: "Never" or "a long time ago".
I understand your negativity. but here is my thing.
If everything is different, then there are potential positive differences as well. Maybe all the negatives are showing now and the positives have not been realized yet. For example, VT flipped the TD Catch leader from Louisville. If not for him, Knowles is a starting WR. Starting!!! But...
The universe balances, leaves turn maroon and orange in the fall for a reason, and this will even out. The negativity around the program, though rare is SW VA, is understandable. Ole Miss, an SEC bottom feeder, has pulled itself up. As did Duke. VT is a better program than both of those schools, so VT can do it too.
Why not?
There is not much to hope for this season, and even in next season. If we field this same team next season with the same coaching staff, I don't see how next season will be much better than this one. That's why the only thing that could really save us is a solid recruiting class that will change things up. People are hanging on to anything that could make a difference, me included.
I agree with you, but Frank has also never had his back to the wall like this in his VT life. I think they'll pull out all they have to keep these recruits here. 2014 has been much different than all the years before, even 2012, so they'll approach it differently. If they don't and Frank continues his recruiting complacency, then they deserve to leave the program.
I have to disagree a little bit with what you're saying. This team can be better with the same players next year. 1) We are fielding a LOT of freshmen, given experience and time in the weight room in the offseason, they will be better. And 2) we have a lot of injuries on the team right now. Those players come back and we will be better. This is not taking into account graduations, just saying that if the same players came back next year, we would be better. All of that said, I think that the place where we need the most help is the O-Line, where we were hit hard by injuries before the season even started.
We don't graduate that many.
I think the number that actually get playing time, including the injured is 9.
That's 9 out of 83?
I think 7 is the number in the top 44, IIRC.
Next year looks very promising, we get some of the injuries back (12?) and a lot of red shirts that were recruited into the new offense.
This offensive coaching staff has me wondering, "What do they know that I don't?" There are some things that certainly seem to work better than others yet inexplicably we deviate. Brewer having his way with their defense on a hurry-up offense and puts together a 95 yard touchdown drive? Great but let's try slowing the game down again and slogging through 3 quarters of 3-and-outs.
I'm clearly not a coach paid millions to run a football team so I'm always wondering, "What do they know that I don't?"
There's a reason Beamer has completely restructured his staff and how they recruit, and Whit has done a much better job supporting them than Weaver ever did. It can't be overstated how important those new recruiting positions are.
Did those changes not happen prior to the last signing class? As part of the whole shake-up of 2012?
I know *why* the recruiting changes were made, it the reason the changes to the way we recruit had been called for for so long. What I'm having an issue coming to terms with is the assumption that they will be effective. I sure *hope* they are effective, but it seems like people are setting themselves up for disappointment by putting so much stock in a class that not only hasn't played yet, many of the biggest reasons for hope haven't signed, or even committed yet.
Isn't that what being a sports fan is all about? In the immortal words of Bart Giamatti, "It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart."
Some of them did and those recruits are freshman, r fr or entering the program starting January.
As for the recruiting staff they just signed on this spring.
The increase of the recruiting staff by 2 is a 100% increase and brings us in line with the rest of the ACC.
So yes, I expect it will have a significant impact, especially since HS football plays in the same season as college football.
Every thing has been heard before.....you are right!
I had to look up the word "Flummoxed". It has now been added to my vocabulary. Also, on a more relevant note, we are in the running for some top recruits, but they are all on the Defensive side of the ball... How is that going to help the offense? We get pretty good recruits on defense yearly. Now they aren't #1 recruits overall, but they are 4-5* guys. 1-3 Top defensive commits are not going to turn this team around. We need some big time O-linemen (which I was happy to see we got one this week).
I'm short on time, so forgive me for the brief response. I disagree that 1-3 top defensive commits won't provide a significant boost to the defense. Take a look at our lean and mean defensive line over the last three games. We got man-handled at the point of attack by three bigger, stronger offensive lines. Our depth took a huge hit with the loss of Luther Maddy for the year, and nagging injuries to guys like Woody Baron haven't helped. True ends should be playing end and traditional tackles (a la Maddy and ManBearPig) should be playing tackle against lines like BC, Pitt and even Miami. The quicker, leaner look can be successful against spread-based teams, but it really hurt us over the last three games.
Do we need help on the o-line? Absolutely. But when healthy, our tailbacks are solid. Our TE's are solid. Our WR's are solid though a little thin due to inexperience. But next year, everyone will be a year older and more experienced. Projections are weak stumps to stand on, but a lot of our issues are the result of youth, inexperience and a lack of quality depth across the board.
Is it a pancea? Absolutely not. But the point of it being Beamer's most important recruiting class is difficult to argue against in my opinion.
Quarterback play, quarterback play, quarterback play.
That's what concerns me about next year.
Not me. We've got some great guys already here and ready to compete for the position.
Brewer, Motley, Ford show should be fun to watch in the spring.
There are a lot of small things wrong with this team, and the losses are piling up due to each. Its not one thing wrong, its many.
Brewer is finding some consistency, which he didn't have early. His turnovers cost us the GT game, but he's getting better. If anything, he's hesitating now, which is resulting in missed chances. Bucky should look like Calvin Johnson this season, not like Waldo.
The defense was small to start the year, and has gotten smaller with the loss of Maddy.
Pitt and Miami both pounded us with bigger lineman. It is unfair to expect safties Bonner and Jarrett to fill gaps consistently while shedding blocks and trying to tackle 250lb runners that have a head of steam. Tech needs bigger bodies in the trenches to stuff the run, as those safeties are more suited for coverage. If Foster wants run support, use linebackers or better yet, Dadi.
The offense can't run the ball, doesn't throw over the top, and losses 50 yds a game due to pre-snap penalties.
I could write a book about why, but its safe to say these three are team problems and does not come down to one player. Because of these issues, I do not expect any of it to be fixed this season. Hopefully the team can manufacture enough pts to make a bowl game and save the season that started out so promising.
Last 2 games those presnap so went away.
Perhaps a coincidence or not, Stanford was back for those helping direct guys, which I think I heard staff say he was good at making sure the right personnel were moving on the various packages.
I think that is the norm in football, I think it was Egbert that posted a graph that showed once you start your drive inside your own 5 the defense is as likely to score as the offense... I'd be interested to see how VT is doing this year vs the average team in those situations. I think you are right that we have been pinned deep an inordinate number of times though
Being pinned that deep makes movement awkward especially for QB drops and punts.
If you are inside your 5 and line up in a shotgun, you don't have much room to move to find a passing Lane or scramble.
It's definitely a little of everything