I felt pretty down after last week's game. I had a bit too much fun Halloweening the night before and we lost to Boston College in a very frustrating fashion. The former left me to make good on a bet made with my good friend Jess, who ran Cross Country at BC. I owe her some homemade guacamole and a bag of Juanita's tortilla chips. I avoided watching the game film on Sunday, and instead took a hike up Mount St. Helens. Monday evening, with my mind clear, I sat down to review the film preparing for the worst. The thing is though, I can't really say we played that poorly... as a team. I couldn't really point out anything that led to the loss in a systematic fashion. There was no barrage of absurd penalties (although for sure a few hurt us). There was no game-wide breakdown by the defense (but when we got beat, it was bad). Our offense didn't implode and found a groove at times (but we certainly could have done better when it mattered). Our special teams play kept us alive (but also led to bury us). Our play as a team, frankly, was alright. The sum of individual mistakes hurts us the most and is what led to BC leaving Lane with the W.
With that said, I didn't want to write a review calling out each player for every time I saw a considerable mistake. That's not fun to write, it's not fun to read, and it's not worth it. Although I will still comment on some of the miscues I noticed on both sides of the ball, I'm going to try and highlight a larger portion of the good plays I found too.
I think we're all in agreement the first drive of the game was pretty awesome. We had great tempo, created confidence for our QB and WRs, and alleviated some pressure from our OL with quick passes and zone reads. It's always nice when the TV broadcast has to cut their replay short to get back to live action. That means you're moving fast. We should do that more often. I really thought (like probably all of you did) that our opening drive, culminating in the TD, was going to set the tone for the entire game. I think it definitely helped to set the tone for our defense early on, who played very well for pretty much the entire first quarter.
I've analyzed this before, but here's another instance of our defense lining up in cover 1 looking to rush 6, but then dropping the DEs back into coverage. We've seen it help us greatly and also hurt us tremendously. In this case, it almost baits Boston College QB Tyler Murphy (No. 2) into throwing an interception. Both defensive ends (Dadi Nicolas No. 90 - VT and Ken Ekanem No. 4 - VT) sit in their underneath zones, and Nicolas almost comes away with the pick.
From the back end zone view, you see how Murphy thinks he has man coverage on the snap, and is expecting the crossing route will be a good hit. You'll notice he doesn't even look over to the side he throws it to during the drop back, so he never sees Nicolas peel off into coverage. The other thing to note here is where Kyshoen Jarrett (No. 34 - VT) lines up. The past two weeks, we've seen him playing 15-20 yards off the ball in this coverage patrolling center field. This week, it appears Bud has brought him up as a QB spy, to hopefully contain Murphy.
Another early first quarter highlight revolved around the play of Jarrett and Detrick Bonner (No. 8 - VT). Some of my reviews have come down hard on Bonner and Jarrett, but I thought they both played well during this part of the game. They were flying around, making tackles and communicating well. I think we see a great example of this communication here. As the motion man comes across, Bonner passes his man off to Jarrett, and then picks up the TE coming off the line. Jarrett then funnels his guy to Fuller, and runs with the deeper receiver. Andrew Motuapuaka (No. 54 - VT) is in a great position to spy on Murphy, who has nowhere to throw the ball downfield. Tech forces a coverage sack. At any point in this play, if the communication breaks down, somebody is going to be wide open.
Again, I think our defense played well overall. A series of individual breakdowns gave way to BC's success, mainly from Murphy running. Containing Murphy was obviously a focus of Foster's game plan (he had a spy on him most of the game). I just don't think it was executed correctly. In this first clip, Dadi Nicolas and Booner appear to be out of sync. Dadi tries to dive inside, which makes me think Bonner should fill the outside. Instead, they both go inside and give the edge to Murphy.
Additionally, a lot of the responsibility for stopping Murphy fell on Motuapuaka. I think he took on the responsibility well, and made some great plays. In this first clip, Motuapuaka does a great job "two-gapping" the defender. Essentially, he engaged the blocker in a neutral fashion, allowing himself freedom to get to either side to make the tackle on Murphy. Very great play in the hole.
In a different situation (Murphy's long run to seal the game for BC), Motuapuaka was again in a position to neutrally engage the blocker and allow himself to make a play to either side. However, in this case he shades a side, which happens to be the same side to which Jarrett is trying to fill. This leaves a wide open hole on the back side of the blocker for Murphy to seal off the game. If Motuapuaka plays it neutral, or feels Jarrett's presence so he drifts the other side, it's no-gain play. Give credit to BC though, this is a great play call at the exact time they needed it. Unfortunately for the Hokies, it was poor defense at a time we really needed it.
On another one of Murphy's long runs, we again see Motuapuaka and Murphy meet in the hole. Although Murphy got past Motuapuaka for a long run, I really think this is a missed holding call. The blocker was behind him with a hand on his back and an arm around his front side pulling/pushing him at the same time. It sprung the whole run, knocking Motuapuaka off balance. A bummer to have a missed call there, because I think Motuapuaka was in great position to make a play near the line of scrimmage.
In contrast to the first defensive clip I dissected, my last is an example of what happens when communication goes bad. Midway through the second quarter, our defense had been playing pretty great. BC was getting good field position, but we were keeping the big plays at bay and had only given up 1 TD. Unfortunately, it only takes one play to turn the game around. Here we have a very condensed formation and everyone is confined to the box.
The hokies are in man coverage, you'll notice both Kendall Fuller (No. 11 - VT) and Chuck Clark (No. 19 - VT) jump up to support the run when they see their TEs stay in and block. The responsibility of the up-back falls to whichever side he releases on, in this case Jarrett's. This leaves Bonner and Motuapuaka as the free men to handle the RB and QB. While they don't seal up the hole in too well, Bonner is probably still in a position to where he can make a play. The kicker here is that Donovan Riley's (No. 2 - VT) man cracks down on Bonner. This is the block that springs the whole play. Riley needs to recognize his man is blocking down, and be ready to fill that hole where Bonner no longer can. A split second hesitation is all BC needs for this play to take off.
Moving back to the offense, a big frustration of mine throughout the year has been when our offensive line is beat when the numbers are in our favor! In this next clip we see BC only rush 4 defenders to the 6 blockers we leave in protection, but still are able to get to Brewer for the sack / almost safety. Sacks will happen. Sacks when you have 6 blockers for 4 rushers should not. In this case, there is clearly a disconnect between what Augie Conte (No. 72 - VT) and Sam Rogers (No. 45 - VT) are thinking. Conte lets one defender through, and then focuses on another. However Rogers lets that same guy through as well, only casually throwing an arm out at him. I'm not sure why he does this, because Rogers is the last line of defense to protect Brewer.
This happened again at the end of the second quarter. Jarrett's great punt return put us in a decent position to get some points before the half. We had 32 seconds from the 24-yard-line which, even with no timeouts, is a reasonable amount of time to score. However, we really hurt ourselves with the first play. BC rushed 4, we had 6 to protect with, but again ended up letting a defender through free. The situation unfolded here in a very similar way to the play above. This time, Wyatt Teller (No. 57 - VT) allows one defender through, assuming Rogers will pick him up. Again Rogers misses the oncoming defender, giving him a clear path to Brewer. We need to have this rusher picked up. Brewer escaped nicely to throw it away and avoid the drive killing sack, but that took 9 seconds off the clock and we didn't give ourselves a chance to move the ball forward.
Brewer had to throw the next one away (no good view of the routes), but on third down Ford made a nice lunge to get the first down. This stopped the clock with 8 seconds left and Beamer decided to go straight for the field goal. I don't think this is the wrong call, but I do think we had enough time for one more play—maybe a fade to Hodges?
Another frustration of mine has been the performance of the offense deep in our own territory. This season there has been a large sample size of drives that have started within the 10-yard-line to evaluate, and we are very inconsistent at gaining yards when we're backed up. It doesn't appear that there is any consistently successful formula. We've tried running three times in a row. We've tried passing three times in a row. We've rolled Brewer out. We've kept him in the pocket. Nothing has seemed to work well for us. This puts tremendous pressure on our defense to defend a short field, not to mention the stress it puts on the punt team to execute a punt and cover out of our own end zone. Our defense generally bails us out, but we can only go to that well so many times. It's especially frustrating to see players confused about play calls when we're stuck deep. In this example, Byrn looks confused before the snap. He looks confused running his route. Something is off, I can't really tell what it is, but it really sucks this had to happen on third down and to the side of the field that Brewer had to work. We didn't give ourselves a chance to succeed there.
Brewer has shown himself to be pretty exceptional when it comes to improvising out of the pocket, especially with finding Rogers. However, Brewer missing a wide open Byrn left Tech to settle for 3 instead of 7, another individual miscue. Early in the second quarter, we were in the red zone looking to score to go up 14-7. On third down, Loeffler dialed up a nice rub route to find Byrn in the end zone. However, Brewer is unable to get the ball to Byrn. The only reasons I can think of as to why Brewer doesn't throw this ball are either his vision is blocked by the linemen, or he thinks Byrn doesn't get his head around for when Brewer wants to throw it. Brewers' footwork is not very convincing and doesn't provide much more information on his intentions.
I can't figure it out. Cam Phillips (No. 18 - VT) was never going to get the ball. The goal of his route his route draw away Willie's defender (which he did well). Yes there was pressure, but there was still time to make a throw. Ugh. I really have no answer for this one.
Another situation where Brewer held the ball when I think he had a good throw open came at the beginning of the fourth quarter. This play is a good example of Brewer just not looking comfortable when he has to deliver a hard throw and fit the ball in to a small opening. We see two stop routes by the receivers to the top of the screen. There's one defender in play here, (the guy initially lined up covering our second receiver in from the top). Both receivers are open in the sense that if you throw a good pass to them, they'll be able to catch it. I can't tell which receiver Brewer is looking at, but I think it is Ryan Malleck (No. 88 - VT) running his quick out. Regardless, I can't figure out why Brewer doesn't throw it.
The short drop indicates he's expecting to throw the ball quickly. Both receivers are open, he would just need a little more mustard behind the ball to hit the WR further out. Sure the protection broke down, but there was enough time to fire off a quick pass. Having the receiver tackled immediately after a 5 yard gain would not have been a bad thing, especially compared to a sack. Brewer needs to make these types of throws.
With our receivers, I think there were a few situations where some minor adjustments could have led to more productive plays. In this example, Malleck needs to recognize he is only going to run himself into more coverage on this route, and motor it down immediately after his break. I think Brewer needs to feel the flow from the linebacker, and really deliver this ball on the money to Malleck. His footwork is clean, but as he releases the ball it just doesn't have much velocity on it. I'm not convinced this would end up getting the first down, but I think IT can be a better play.
As a side note, I am curious why they chose to run this play with a TE split wide instead of having another WR out there. I don't see a whole lot of success hitting the in route to Malleck at 7 yards to get the 14 needed on third down. Brewer was correct to work to the top of the screen based on the coverage (To the bottom, the in route to Philips is covered up), but the way this one is drawn up I don't see much chance at getting the first down.
As a better example of what I'm talking about, check out this play with Ford. As Ford comes out of his break, he feels the pressure of the LB, so he sits down instead of drifting across and running himself into being covered. However, Brewer still throws it as if Ford was running across towards the middle. They need to be on the same page for this.
To that end, I think the next play is another example of Brewer and his receivers being on slightly different wavelengths. There are certain things you can't teach, learn or verbalize, they just come about from playing together naturally. On this screen to Ford, you see how he sits there waiting for the ball? The way this play is designed, he probably did exactly what he was supposed to do. However, BC rushes hard up the field, giving Hodges a tough block. Ford and Brewer, given time to work together, should both understand that Ford needs to work back to the ball to have space to receive the catch, so that Bucky can make his block. It's not something you can call, it's just something they need to feel out and pick up by being on the same page. It comes with time. If Ford makes that catch up near the top of the numbers, he's one on one in space versus a defender near the goal line. Not a bad position to be in.
Ultimately, individual mistakes cost us, but I saw some promising moments that we can build on versus Duke. I expect the coaches to focus on a lot of... well... coaching during the bye week. I think if they're able to address a lot of the individual mistakes that we saw, then we have a pretty good chance at leaving Durham with the W. I hope we see defenders playing their gaps a bit stronger, to help reduce the big plays that have plagued us throughout the season. I'm hoping that Brewer is able to feel confident in the pocket, allowing him to throw the ball with accuracy and intensity. I'm hoping our special teams can recover from the series of errors that really dug us into a hole a couple times. I'm hoping our offensive line will hold solid in protection, at least when we out number the defenders. Finally, I'm hoping there's still some drive and desire from the coaches and players to finish the rest of the year out strong. It's now become a 3-game season. We can still qualify for a bowl, and beat Virginia. I'm pulling for us.
Comments
There's something small that I noticed, but bothered me throughout the game. It's shown on most of the BC offensive clips here. Right at the snap, the center picks his head up, gestures with his left arm, and simultaneously snaps the ball. He hasn't come set for a second, and often times in the game, he was moving quite a lot while the ball was being snapped. Shouldn't this be a false start every time, or am I missing something?
I saw that too and was thinking maybe I don't understand the rule completely.
I know the center gets quite a bit of leeway but we were called earlier this season for the center not being set.
It was often enough where it really did appear as if the center was using the motion to disguise the time of the snap.
I've been a football official for a decade so I want to provide a little insight into this, since I see what you're getting at but the language you've used isn't correct. Coming set for a second is all about foot motion and setting the formation, its not about hands or heads or anything else.
The center has never changed his basic position, he is allowed to pivot up and down on his hips, look with his head and gesture all he wants. It would be rare to see a linemen, much less an interior linemen shifting/motioning requiring a 1 second reset prior to the snap. He has established his position the moment he puts his hands on the ball to get ready to snap it. None of his motions change his established position.
Had this motion come in compliment with the snap count such that it was the basis for multiple encroachment calls, it is possible you could get a false start for simulating the snap (there is a defensive delay of game penalty for simulating snap count calls as well). However, none of the action shown in the clips really simulates the snap, even if his actions are a strong indication of the snap being imminent. As well none of his actions draw the opponent offside, nor are they particularly jerky, even if they seem quick when the 1/2 speed replay changes to a real time replay.
The situation you would be getting at could come into play with something that looks like this: we used to run the 2 TE shift frequently under Stiney where we would shift the strength of the formation by motioning both TEs from one side to the other. If after the shift the ball was snapped while they had just gotten their heads around toward the opponents end line, but before 1 second had passed (or in our case has reset to block) you would likely see the penalty you've mentioned.
Physical movement is allowed on the line by set players, people don't stand like statues on the line. Guys may be adjusting gloves, or settling in with their stance, looking over the defense. The key is movement that indicates the start of the play, and then does any quick or accidental motion cause the defense to encroach. As long as that player is holding their established position for 1 second prior to the snap they are okay (the exception being the 1 allowed man in motion who has all kind of other restrictions about them).
I hope that helps illuminate a bit of what you were noticing. Some of this is also tolerance by the officials on the crew. I'm sure the umpire and the centers chatted during the game about little things they want to do, how they set the ball etc where such an issue could have been covered.
Thanks for the explanation! Good education. I guess, in those terms, this is all fine. I've just never seen any other team with a center exhibiting that level of motion consistently through the game. It seemed like it was every snap. Sometimes, at least to my eye, it seemed that he started to pull his body upward before he let go of the ball. That was probably a combined effect of his head moving and left arm flailing up, but it seemed incredibly distracting to me, and often seemed like he was coming out of his stance before releasing the ball. That's what was getting me wondering about how it was OK.
A big philosophical component of this from an officiating standpoint would be did it have an impact on the defensive players? On the one hand defenders need to watch the ball, however if his motion had been egregious enough to draw them it may have been enough to warrant a false start. None of our interior defenders buy his motion as being part of the snap, and that has to play into it too. It's not a credible simulation of the snap when none of the offense and none of the defense react to it.
No advantage gained, no foul. It looks weird, but is definitely within the allowable limits with the snap following very closely/concurrent with that action.
BOOM! Officiating knowledge officially dropped. Out of curiosity, where do you officiate?
I currently officiate in Central Texas (Austin Chapter), and I have previously officiated HS ball in SWVA (Roanoke Valley), East TN (Knoxville), and Northern VA (Fairfax County). Texas UIL uses lightly modified NCAA rules while the rest of my associations have used NFHS rules.
I started officiating with the Virginia Tech Intramural Sports Dept (from 05-08 I'm sure some of y'all ran into me up on the IMS fields), and have carried it on with me. My hope is to start officiating college ball soon as I have aspirations to call D1 ball, so I expect this next spring will include a lot of camps and clinics for me since I've been around it long enough to have a good officiating resume.
I'm looking forward to the TX playoffs which start here next week, my crew should be getting at least 1, hopefully 2 weeks of playoff games to work.
The VT IMS has a number of really knowledgeable experienced officials working in it (I know the current director is a college ball official, and the prior director was a D1 WBball ref), any students that are interested in really learning that side of the game I'd encourage to try out with them. It can be a ton of fun if you have the disposition for it, and it's a neat way to earn some cash on campus.
That's awesome! I started officiating this year in the Roanoke Valley (WVFOA - is that your old association and was Steve still the commissioner back then?) and absolutely love it, especially since I've been getting varsity games. A good chunk of our guys do college ball as well, and I'm hoping to work my way up there at some point in the coming years.
Definitely agree with the last bit about VT IMS. I wish I had considered officiating as a student back in the day. Once you start, you're hooked. I can think of no better way to spend my Thursday/Friday nights - make money, run around a bit, and get a front-row seat to high school football with my buddies. Awesome.
Yup the WFVOA was the first association I was with and honestly that was almost 8 years ago that I was in it I can no longer remember who the commish was! Last I spoke with my old white hat he was still around, but his knee was keeping him from working a ton of games.
The only downside to working IMS is that the fields are on top of the hill near the airport and the wind is downright nasty in November when Flag is wrapping up. Layers, layers, layers, I'm so glad I haven't had to break out long sleeve stripes yet here in Texas.
You've officiated literally the exact same places I have lived in my life.
I was born in Texas, grew up in NOVA (Loudoun), did my undergrad at Tech (duh), and now reside in Knoxville (grad school.)
Weird.
I also went to UTK for grad school, MS in Sports Management (09)!
But that is an odd coincidence...
The point about the D-line was a good one. If it wasn't affecting our guys, then it's fine. It just looked so odd to me, and I knew I had to be missing something. Getting away with a penalty here or there happens all the time, but if it's every snap I knew my understanding had to be flawed.
Thanks for the info!
Impressive amount of learning this morning. Especially for a Monday.
Thanks!
Thanks for the great write up Jeff. It helped me build a little optimism for the remainder of the season, 3 more regular season wins and a bowl game win would be a nice finish to a frustrating season and give reason for hope for next season. GO HOKIES!!!
Very nice analysis. I was wondering if you could do a little on how our offense benefits from the hurry up. I think once or twice we were actually able to run plays when half their d-line was turned around. Just about every play I remember last week that was snapped with 25 seconds on the play clock was a positive one. I'm just wondering what factors allow us to go quickly, and why we slow down the tempo.
I think a lot of the benefit of the hurry up is what you just mentioned. Catching the defense off guard / before they are prepared is obviously helpful for the offense. Furthermore, I think the hurry-up creates a sense of urgency that allows the players to just play, and takes away a lot of the thinking. Generally speaking, hurry-up calls are a bit less complex, allowing the players to recall their assignment on a play and go do it. Its interesting, but I think in a lot of situations (even outside of football), having less time to think allows for more decisive decision making. In football, sometimes a full-speed mistake is much more desirable to hesitation. So I do agree with you, when we're struggling I think the hurry up is a great call. Why don't we do it? That's hard to say, there's many things along the chain that could be slowing it down, from Loeffler, to the signalers, to Brewer in the huddle to Brewer at the snap. Too hard to try and point to exactly why we don't do hurry up more often, other than it's not a priority it seems.
I just don't understand why it isnt pressed more. I think Loeffler is trying to overthink plays. The opening drive of the second half of Miami, I'm very certain that we ran the exact same run play 3 consecutive times. And it worked. So they can keep it incredibly simple but stay effective. Other than being pinned inside our own 10, I see no reason to slow down.
I guess the whole idea of bringing in a transfer to fill in immediately is showing its drawbacks in the form of chemistry on the field. Thanks to all of the film breakdown by Jeff and French I am really starting to see the "game of inches" saying as more than just the yard sticks and first downs. Each small mistake is amplified by being a missing link on the team chain. More respect to the coaches for planning to these levels of detail, but also a bigger spotlight on them to get these mistakes fixed in practice week-to-week.
The concept of 'rhythm' and 'momentum' is hard to quantify, but anyone who has watched/played any sport can speak to the importance of these things.
yup, or played in a band...knowing and feeling what the other person is going to do
Jeff:
These are great write-ups.
You are also in a very cool part of the world. Back when the earth was flat (and about 4 years before St Helens blew up), I had a summer job working in the Randle Ranger District for USFS...Randle is on US 12 about halfway between Mt St Helens and Mt Ranier. We made a point of eating lunch every day at a different, remote creek. Amazing area. Enjoy it while you are there.
Thanks for the tip. I do love this area. The only drawback is distance from the Hokie football atmosphere out here. I have to live vicariously through all you guys.
I noticed there were several holds by BC that were not called. Frustrating.
Well hello Glenvar Hokie! GHS alumni here. :)
I've thought this a few times over the past few weeks but it really shows the sad state of affairs that we are grasping to moral victories and small signs of improvement in VT's defeat against average opponents. It just seems that the team can't get out of their way at times. Hopefully the incremental progress we saw when VT played BC (compared to the beat down against Miami) gives the team some confidence and spring boards them to a strong finish.
Gotta get bowl eligible for that extra month of practice!