Virginia Tech's Options at Rover in the Absence of C.J. Reavis

Last Friday it was reported by multiple media outlets that projected starter at rover C.J. Reavis is no longer enrolled at Virginia Tech. Reavis will appeal the decision of a student conduct hearing, but his potential absence from the Hokies' depth chart this season could have a domino effect on the defensive secondary. The Hokies will begin the 2015 season without graduated three-year starters Kyshoen Jarrett and Detrick Bonner. It is paramount that the new rover and free safety effectively communicate force and spill calls with the edge defender and then be reliable one-on-one tacklers. The Hokies have a host of rover candidates that have spent a significant amount of time in the program, but none of those options have the playmaking ability that C.J. Reavis brought to the table. Foster will spend August camp working to identify a player from a large pool that can effectively communicate coverage and run support calls, be an effective tackler in one-on-one battles around the line of scrimmage, and that can cover tight ends and slot receivers. Foster may be forced into using a platoon system in order to get each of those pieces on the field based on situational need.

Reavis stood out in the spring game by leading the Hokies in tackles, including several strong alley tackle fills that I highlighted in my spring game review. I also noted that Reavis overran a handful of plays and was susceptible to counter-action, which isn't surprising for an inexperienced player. Reavis provided a significant upgrade in potential playmaking ability, yet I anticipated that there would be some growing pains as he became more comfortable with playing assignment-driven run support. Now, Foster has to reshuffle a deck that is also significantly dependent upon fielding a healthy Brandon Facyson in order to cope with aggressive spread passing games like North Carolina and Ohio State.

From the moment the possibility that Reavis may not be available became apparent to the coaches, I expect that Coach Foster started working on contingencies. He has several options. Desmond Frye has some experience at both the rover and free safety, although very little in game situations after 2013. Donovan Riley played rover in the spring. Anthony Shegog played the nickel position in the Military Bowl, however most of his practice time in Blacksburg has been spent as a rover. Terrell Edmunds played as the No. 2 rover in the spring game, and Adonis Alexander started the spring at rover before he was moved to boundary corner after he demonstrated excellent coverage ability. Chuck Clark has been identified by Bud Foster as his likely free safety, yet his excellent performance as a run defender playing near the line of scrimmage gives Foster the flexibility to use him as a rover.

Each of those options has merits, and each has potential down side. Frye is a dependable player, yet his athletic upside is limited. Against Alabama in 2013, he was isolated in pass defense several times and was beaten badly (most notably for a touchdown by Christion Jones).

Neither Frye nor Riley impressed me in the spring game with their run support. Riley particularly seemed hesitant to come forward in run support, and as a corner he was wildly inconsistent with his tackling (particularly against wide receiver screens by East Carolina). Moving Clark away from the nickel or free safety spot takes away one of the three best coverage players (along with Fuller and Facyson) from positions that match up more often against wide receivers. Edmunds is inexperienced, and Foster indicated at the Northern Virginia Hokie Club Chalk Talk in April that Shegog may have outgrown the rover position and will move to whip. Each solution seems to create a new problem.

I noodled on this over the weekend, and in my deliberations, I looked back to Coach Foster's scheme in 2012. 2012 was a bad season marked by a slew of injuries in the defensive secondary. After several poor recruiting cycles, the defensive cupboard was nearly bare. Foster's initial solution was to try and highlight the strengths of his available players while minimizing exposure of their weaknesses. His initial system moved Bonner into a coverage role, while Michael Cole was used almost exclusively in run support or zone coverage. When Cole was injured, Foster abandoned most of his nickel looks and used Alonzo Tweedy as an edge rusher. Both looks were flawed, and occasionally exposed, however they allowed Foster to field a competitive unit while limiting opportunities for offenses to exploit weaknesses.

I could envision Foster using a similar approach without Reavis in the lineup. In base defensive situations when the Hokies use two-deep safeties, I would expect Chuck Clark at free safety, and Desmond Frye at rover. When Foster wants to use an eight-man front, like the Bear defense, he would need to maximize tackling against the run and man coverage, and no one player brings that skillset at the rover spot based on my observation. However, just like in baseball, Foster could use a platoon system.

Against Ohio State, Kyshoen Jarrett played a significant portion of snaps aligned next to Chase Williams while executing many of the same inside linebacker responsibilities as a backer. If Foster wants to get his best playmakers on the field, perhaps we might see a similar scenario where, in run down and distance situations, Foster could incorporate an athletic linebacker in lieu of a rover in a Bear or other eight-man front alignment. For example, Ronny Vandyke or Jamieon Moss could align next to Motuapuaka to support the run. Both would provide bigger bodies that could take on blockers and make tackles in the box. Based on Vandyke's 2012 spring game performance, it is safe to assume that he would not be a liability in coverage against most tight ends and less threatening slot receivers. However, Vandyke would need to be less robotic in executing assignments in that role and showcase his natural ability that we saw glimpses of in 2012. So far, his head tying up his feet (and staying healthy) has kept him from taking the next step.

The second part of the platoon would be coverage oriented. Jarrett sometimes struggled in man coverage, when he found himself matched up against athletic tight ends like East Carolina's Bryce Williams. Having a big, athletic coverage player gives Foster some options on the boundary.

One of the revelations of the spring was the ability of Adonis Alexander to play coverage. In early scrimmage work, Alexander often found himself matched up with Bucky Hodges, and Alexander showed the ability as a young player to stay stride for stride with the TE matchup nightmare. Shortly afterwards, Foster moved Alexander to the boundary corner. He was beaten badly once on a busted coverage by Deon Newsome in the spring game. Otherwise, his man coverage was very solid. I could envision a situation where Alexander could be utilized in man coverage from the rover spot against tight end's like Bryce Williams and big slot receivers like UNC's Mack Hollins. Alexander's long term future likely is as a big boundary corner similar to Jimmy Williams, however short term his size and ability to cover (areas where the other rover options are not as adept) may facilitate his ability to help the team meet an immediate need at the rover spot.

You may ask why I wouldn't suggest Alexander as an every down option at rover. His high school film projected him as a big safety who was more comfortable around the line of scrimmage than he was in space. I would argue, as a true freshman, that while Alexander has the physical ability to play strong run support, his limited experience (especially given how little time he spent at rover in the spring making force and spill calls) could be a negative. The rover is a coach on the field setting the defense to the boundary side. Communication is critical, and Foster usually utilizes experienced players in that role whenever possible. Putting Alexander in that position as an every down player instead of as a situational match up could create communication errors. In Foster's defense, one player being out of position can spell doom.

I can't sugar coat the apparent loss of Reavis. I have been incredibly high on the kid since the beginning of his recruitment. His ability to ballhawk, support the run, and cover made him a likely candidate to be a three-year starter. His loss will be felt. At the same time, the Hokies have a host of young players that can effectively play the position. Bud Foster has a proven track record of taking players that may be limited and find ways to fit them into his system effectively without fundamentally changing his system's core tenets.

No one can be certain of what Bud will do to adapt, yet two things will happen. 1) He will put a kid into the position where he has the best chance of having success. 2) The depth chart and alignments that will be discussed in press conferences and showcased at any public scrimmages will most likely not be the scheme and personnel that lines up against the Buckeyes. Coach Foster will play his cards close to the vest.