I grew frustrated with myself Saturday morning in anticipation of the Hokies' first road trip of the season. Why was I so nervous heading into a game versus a Purdue team that had only two wins against FBS opponents during the Darrell Hazell era? After all, the second half versus Furman should have gone a long way towards quelling any lingering doubts about this team, right?
The problem is that I'm emotionally scarred. You probably are too. If you're not, you're probably new around here. Hopefully you won't be forced to endure the dramatic peaks and valleys that go along with Hokie fandom because, as the great Bob Dylan once said, "the times they are a-changin'."
After enjoying an unprecedented run of success from 1999-2011 in which the Hokies amassed an astonishing 132-39 record, Frank Beamer's teams have gone a depressingly average 24-18 since. But even during the streak of ten-win seasons there were dotted with four ACC Championships, we were all left wanting more.
Maybe it was the 6-0 start in 2003 that was temporarily derailed in Morgantown, put back-on-track a week later with the famous 31-7 drubbing of No. 2 Miami, and then spoiled by a 1-5 stretch to end the season.
Or maybe it was the 8-0 start and No. 3 rank in 2005, before being gut-punched by Miami at home and again by Florida State in the ACC Championship game.
And we can't forget the 2007, 2009 and 2011 teams that spent the entire season ranked in the top 25, but failed to win a BCS bowl.
Even during the good years we became conditioned to eventual heartbreak. Over the past few seasons, we've gotten excited about the possibility of being ranked — that's how unfortunate things have become.
Heading into this season, many college football pundits tabbed the Hokies as a breakout candidate. Some speculated that they could win the ACC Coastal; others viewed them as team that could surprise and slide into the playoff discussion.
All of these expectations simultaneously excite and terrify me. I love hearing the national media talk about the Hokies, but far too many times have I witnessed a strong Tech team simply fail to show up.
I think that's a large part of what occupied my mind Saturday morning. I felt so good about the direction this team was headed that I worried a road game against a team they should beat was exactly the type of game that would trip them up.
Right before halftime, it looked as though my worst fears might be realized. Despite being thoroughly dominated, statistically, Purdue was hanging tight with the Hokies thanks to a slew of untimely Tech penalties and a 90-yard fumble return by Boilermaker Danny Ezechukwu.
But with a little over two minutes left in the first half, Trey Edmunds broke through for consecutive big gains and Brenden Motley capped off the drive with a 2-yard touchdown run that sparked a streak of 27 unanswered points by the Hokies.
By day's end, the Hokies led almost every key statistical category; they scored on offense, defense and special teams for the first time since the Clemson game in 2007; and they single handedly beat the over/under line (49). It was a stellar day from the good guys and a strong first road start for guys like Motley, Adonis Alexander and Sean Huelskamp.
So what do we make of this team now that a quarter of the 2015 season is in the books? This is a team that led No. 1 Ohio State at halftime, only to lose momentum in the second half after starting QB Michael Brewer was sidelined with a broken collarbone. They followed that up with two resounding victories over a high level FCS Furman (that just knocked off UCF) and a middling Power 5 team that resulted in 93 total points and more non-offensive touchdowns (3) than opponents' offensive touchdowns (2).
This team is by no means perfect, but through three games it's hard not to feel good about what we've seen from the Hokies thus far. It will take at least another week to fully understand this team's strengths and weaknesses, but the first twelve quarters of the season have provided us with a strong foundation.
The second half against the Buckeyes is the outlier — you had a backup quarterback who was thrown into the fire on a national stage against a defense that smelled blood in the water. Remove that half and take the first few offensive drives of the Furman game with a grain of salt, and that's your team, right?
That's a team that can go places. Admittedly, the defensive line is prone to breakdowns. The mike linebacker spot is at best unresolved and at worst the defense's weak spot. Lockdown corner Kendall Fuller doesn't look 100 percent. But the offense is a little more dynamic than it used to be, the anticipated weaponry has met expectations, and the staff continues to do a fantastic job integrating young guys like Adonis Alexander with great success.
After the final whistle, I felt foolish for fretting about Saturday's game. Seeing your team drop 51 points will do that to you. But as that foolishness dissipated, I found myself filled with hope. Hope that this team is different from years past. Hope that we're seeing the start of something special.
Comments
As much of the first half of this was bringing up bad memories, I must agree with your line:
he problem is that I'm emotionally scarred. You probably are too. If you're not, you're probably new around here.
But I have the same feeling, this team has talent, this team has drive (for 4 quarters even!), and with the way our conference is and opponents struggling to get momentum it is exciting to see what may come! Beat dem Pirates!!
Yeah. I felt the same way going into Saturday's game. I kept thinking to myself, we should win this - easily. But then that doubt would set in and in my mind I'd start listing off games from the past three years that we should've won handily.
Hopefully this season does something to help alleviate these doubts of mine. Seems we're headed in the right direction.
ECU next week...of course I'm nervous.
"we should win this - easily" is precisely what my head said before last year's WF game. The rest of me was REALLY worried.
its stuff like this which has stripped away all confidence that I have in our team to win any game easily. I don't think I'm ever going to be able to honestly say with 100% confidence that VT will win any game handily. Every single game every single year has me on edge.
Exactly this. As soon as we get confidence something bad and unexplainable happens. Beat ECU!!!
I think you nailed it when you talked about hope that something is different. I think we are going to have a big year. But even if we don't, unknown this team is different from past iterations that have left me wanting more. And that's a positive, in itself.
Did anyone else find the ESPNU broadcasters had an overt anti-VT bias? I have had 3 other folks tell me that they had to finally mute ESPNU. I switched to the radio call, which was 20+ seconds ahead of the satellite, because I couldn't take them. Even though I am still missing Bill and not sold on Laaser.
this was pointed out a lot in the live game discussion thread, so you're not alone. in the first half, there was a whole lot of Purdue-pumping and VT negativity. most notably with the "Take that, Virginia Tech" comment by Ahmad Brooks and being called Virginia a couple times, which is the highest of insults. Fortunately, it evened out in the 2nd half and the broadcast got easier to stomach, since the commentary couldn't say much now that VT brought down the hammer.
and welcome to TKP, fellow Hokie EE! Have a leg!
Wasn't Ahmad Brooks a part of the winless UVA group against us? If so, then maybe he can't just digest Hokie success.
Also, can't but notice the unbelievable gap in quality between top guys like Herbie, Palmer to the likes of Brooks.
You're thinking of a different Ahmad Brooks. They said where he was from but can't think of it right now but it wasn't UVA.
The Amhad Brooks that was calling our game on Saturday played at Texas.
Was he at Texas when we beat them in the Sugar Bowl?
No born 1980
u mean loluva
That's what was googled at first, but that particular Ahmad Brooks is still an active player for the San Francisco 49ers. The commentator Ahmad Brooks is a retired NFL player that played his college ball at Texas.
Welcome. I actually want to have a Laaser conversation. I listened to the first half, and while it's definitely jarring not hearing Bill, I liked him. At first, I kept expecting (hoping, almost?) him to screw up players' names, but he did a great job, I thought, and once I was past that, he had me well in the rhythm of the game. I also enjoyed him and Burnop joking about hopefully being comfortable with each other by the time the home game with Purdue comes along in a decade or so.
So two thumbs cautiously up so far. Anyone caught any UCLA games on the radio yet? Must've been familiar territory for Bill, calling a win over LOLUVA.
I listened to the last 5 minutes of game time with Burnop and Laaser since my 3.5 month old son had reached his limit at the bar and was very pleased. Then I turned out Virginia Tech Sports Today on Fox Sports South since I was shocked to see it showing in Georgia. He took over Roth's role there as the host and did a great job there as well. I really enjoyed the piece about Wes Worsham and his former military buddy who he goes and visits at his grave yearly to share a can of PBR, his only beer each year. He's no Bill Roth, but I'm not upset with him.
ESPN played a clip of the radio broadcast from the UCLA win over UVA in some montage they did last week. It was Bill, and I cried and cried
I hope we play UCLA in a bowl game again, just to hear him say the Virginia Tech Hokies and maybe a Freudian slip for when we score "Touchdown Tech!"
Do you listen to the radio broadcast while watching the game? I've never been able to master that sorcery.
It's very difficult since you can pause your television and not the radio. you'd have to have a radio tuner that you can pause to make them sync.
Even then I find I have to resync after every commercial. Not worth it after awhile.
I had to listen to most of the first half on the radio, and I thought it was fine. I'm still not used to not hearing Bill's voice, but I think Laaser did a good job and it will just take some time to get used to hearing his voice.
Coming back from Blacksburg after the Furman game, I was flipping around to a bunch of other games on SiriusXM, and we are really lucky with our radio broadcasts. Some of the broadcasts from other schools are TERRIBLE.
It also didn't help that the play by play guy was completely off base on most of the reviews.
On our scoop and score, he was sure that it would be coming back -- I was sure that they would just say the call stands, yet the official confirmed it.
The only thing that kept me from finding the radio broadcast was that I knew there was a delay, and it's been impossible to get the radio and TV to match up for the last 10-15 years.
Had to listen on SiriusXM, as I was on the road and HokieSports app was having fits.
The Purdue home announcers were trying but still had trouble. Our kicker was "Joel" Slye, for the entire game. Our quarterback was "Bentley" (the name of a Purdue player) for a couple of series. Don't even ask me what name they called Sam Rogers (it was in no way similar).
Of course after they called Sam by the wrong name they played the national anthem and went off the air for safety.
Have to agree with the entire article. Although I am curious as to the lack of sacks by Dadi and Ken. Perhaps, teams are aware and getting the ball out quicker or double teaming them or something. I would have figured they would have dominated one of these earlier teams. Perhaps it will be ECU. I know it's there for them just waiting to see them bust out this year. They were hyped up a lot, for good reason, now just waiting to see them crush people. Maybe they are saving it for ACC play.
I believe this has been pointed out by Foster a couple times. Teams have definitely been scheming against our quick d-line by getting rid of the ball quickly. Even though they're not getting sacks, the stat line to notice is QB hurries and hits just after the ball is thrown. Sacks are great, but its the consistent threat of immediate pressure that is game changing for a defense.
true......hopefully those hurries and hits lead to more int's and fumbles. Plus I do think them scheming against our DE's it frees up others to get to the QB as we have seen some of.
+6 in the turnover battle might be a good indicator of this.
I'd wager it's a pretty good indicator. I'll take positive in that stat at the cost of sacks all year long.
Maybe French will pick this up this week, but from my novice eyes, we ditched the Bear in the 2nd half and went back to the 4-3. This may have been contributing to some of our DE weaknesses. By dropping at least one of our DE's inside the OT's, teams were able to control them better and Clarke and RVD were not picking up the sacks.
Dadi was disruptive, less so for Ekanem (who I don't think is anywhere near healthy).
I don't think I saw the bear all game. I saw a lot of 3-4 (three down linemen and two linebackers standing up in the gaps) but that's not the same thing, is it?
I've gone back and re-watched the 1st quarter only. I think I saw the bear front on only one play pretty early...maybe the 2nd or 3rd play? I did see some really interesting other stuff though that I don't recall seeing before; it'll be interesting to get French's take on it.
The analyst was really getting on my nerves constantly referring to the bear front like it is a VT staple on D.
They said it like a billion times.
Eleventy billion to be precise
Tell that to the announcer. Whenever we had a linebacker walked up he started calling it a bear look, and it wasn't even close. Guy had no idea what he was talking about.
Best educated fans in the ACC...
Thanks to the staff here at TKP
That 3 down lineman look is Tech's 30 package. It's a defense used in obvious passing situations.
Just want to point out that Brewer has the highest QBR in all of college football for active or non-active QBs this season. Of course its only through 2 and a half quarters, but it is against the no.1 team so I think that makes it a wash. Just a testament to what could have been and what may still yet be for the end of the season...
Your first few paragraphs describe me perfectly. I was in school and attended VT games from 2003-2012. The better part of my undergrad and early grad school coincided with some fantastic VT teams, and I went to Lane every week confident of a win. There was no doubt in my mind, regardless of opponent. Maybe that was blind homerism (and I certainly saw plenty of losses), but there was an intrinsic confidence around the teams and among the fans. The last few years have been sobering, and each week I feel anxious. Hell, I was a little unsure going into the Furman game, and until we were up a few scores, I wasn't sitting easy. Maybe these guys have it turned around. A lot to be hopeful about, but as you say, we'll learn a lot more by how they approach ECU and how they fare. If we can smack down the perpetual monkeys on our back, I will feel a lot better going into conference play. But then, too, Pitt...
Ah the glorious agonies of loving this program. Go Hokies!
I really enjoy the Slept On It articles. Its a great way to start a discussion about the emotions this team creates, whether good or bad haha
This team does not have the talent of the 99–11 teams. While the rest of the ACC has gotten stronger, our recruiting has taken big hits. Yes, we were athletically superior to Purdue, but we are middle of the pack in the ACC in terms of talent.
This team has better talent than middle of the pack. And, when we were winning titles, teams like FSU still had superior talent and weren't putting it together on the field consistently.
I want to believe that we are out of the middle of the ACC pack, but we need to prove it with a Coastal championship. Anything worse than first in our division is still middle of the pack considering FSU and Clemson are still up there.
I think maybe we have a differing definition of middle of the pack. Regardless, this team should be competing for the coastal this year.
What is your idea of it, out of curiosity? I'd put it as anywhere outside of the top four teams in the league (so spots 5-10, with the remaining four being the bottom).
Top four right now, to me, would be FSU/Clemson/GT with no clear indicator of who takes that final spot.
I would call spots 5-10 the pack, so I guess about 7 and 8 would be the middle. I will admit that it's splitting hairs.
If FSU is really a top ACC team then count me worried for our BC game. I mean, holding the top team in the ACC to a single offensive TD is a monster achievement.
BC has a really good defense. They always play FSU tough. I think FSU is overrated. It will be interesting to see what we do against BC this year. Our defense needs to improve drastically before that game because I think it will be a low scoring affair and we absolutely can't let mental lapses on defense lose that game for us.
They will be without their starting QB for the rest of the season. It'll be interesting to see who replaces him, from what I've read they have a freshman dual-threat guy or Doug Flutie's nephew, who is a redshirt freshman.
No way GT has more talent than us...they have a QB who runs their system to near perfection and is also a great athlete, runner and better thrower than they've had. Remember we GAVE them that game in Bburg last year and we're better this year.
Time will tell, but if we are above the middle of the pack, it is barely above the middle of the pack. We are not real close to the top two or maybe three.
As for what Florida State (and Miami) have done or not done with superior talent, it is the distinction between necessary and sufficient.
My guess is Lefty and Bud are gonna play vanilla this coming week. And though we're seeing glimpses, I'd say relative to the competition we won't know for several more games just what talent we do have. The past is past and looking back on it as so-called halcyon times doesn't move the chains.
As long as it's good vanilla like Breyer's or Edy's and not cheap vanilla like Food Lion, I'm ok with vanilla.
FYI, I've done some work in the Dairy industry. Depending on the contract, the Food Lion vanilla is EXACTLY like the brand name vanilla.
Learn something new every day.
Different product, but same idea. The big manufacturers of many goods make all of the goods, including the store brand, artisinal brands and some "custom" brands of whatever. In the case I am vanilla with, it is fishing line. Berkeley makes all kinds of expensive and quality brands of monofilament fishing line. One of their better products is labeled XL for extra limp. Bass Pro Shops sells the same line, labeled Bass Pro Excel line, but for a fraction of the price. Same quality line, but I could buy over 6,000 yds of Excel for less than 24 bucks, when 300 yds of the same in the XL label would cost almost 10 dollars. Same stuff.
got a good generic for Power Pro?
didn't know anyone still used mono : )
Nope, there are numerous braids available, but haven't seen anyone going cheap with good stuff. Kinda like Gulp! products. There are just no acceptable substitutes and they're not getting off of the price point because they know how good the stuff is.
Yep, there are probably a few million of us out here that still use mono. No real good reason not to use it in many applications, as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, for fishing really deep, or trolling, or fishing for really big fish, I will use it, but for a large portion of my fishing, I still use mono and will not change over, despite the claims of many of my fishing friends. I know big time guides who stick with mono as well. I have personally broken three rods, seen two others broken, and cut my finger to the bone on two occasions using braid, things that just weren't gonna happen if mono was on the reel. Using a really good rod and reel provides me with all the feel I need, and all the power I need to set the hook and deal with the fish I like to fish for. Most folks with braid claim longer casting as an asset, yet I can outcast anyone I've ever fished with using my mono. Now, I use quality mono, and I change my line routinely, but I'm not convinced that braid is the go to for every application. I have spent three years catching flounder and redfish, in addition to the spot/croaker around here using green, 6lb Bass Pro Excel. I'm using heavier line, but still mono, when fishing jigs, etc., in deeper water or when after bigger fish, but unless I'm dragging big lead in 40+ feet, or trolling Mojos and big bucktails, or eel fishing for "mature" stripers, I'm still using mono. I used mono exclusively when fishing for smallmouth in the New, walleye in Claytor and the New, and crappies anywhere. I used both for musky, but didn't develop a distinct preference. In the end, that's what it boils down to, preference. I fished several days a few years back with Ken Penrod on the Susquehanna in the big spring water for smallmouth. He as I did, used 8lb Bass Pro Excel, and the bulk of his tackle is comped, so he could have used anything he wanted without worrying about cost. He swore by it, even in the high muddy water, and breakoffs were rare for him, as well as for me in my many years of fishing and guiding on the New. While I bought into the hype for a while, I settled back into what worked best for me. I could live quite nicely without braid, and, while in the long run it is nice not to have to change line out so often, in the light tackle fishing I seem most drawn to, mono is just alright with me.
Aren't you glad you asked? (Believe it or not, this is the condensed version!)
I am!
I use braid to eliminate wind knots and to handle the abrasiveness of fishing around/in oyster bars and docks. If you don't flirt with trouble, you aren't going to catch much. I use inexpensive mono backing under 60 to 70 yards of 15 lb power pro. I rotate 5 light spinning rigs (7' rod; 2500 series reels) and can fish 2 plus seasons without changing line...I do however turn the braid around in between seasons and I keep the drag modest so the braid doesn't bite down on itself. I use a 20- 25 lb fluorocarbon leader tied to the braid with an improved Albright. If I get hung up bad, it breaks at the knot. I get way fewer...near zero... tangles than I used to get with mono and spend a lot less on line.
My first adventures with braid were a disaster. But once I got it down, I can't imagine going back. I do fish light tackle inshore saltwater almost exclusively , so I'm not looking at a myriad of applications.
You do what many of my friends do for many of the same reasons. As for tangles, I have essentially eliminated trouble with tangles by the simple maneuver of shutting the bail with my hand instead of with the reel handle, often with a quick glance down to assure a tight line before reeling. Most tangles on spinning reels is caused by reeling against a slack line and leaving a less than tight loop around the reel which then is dragged off prematurely when the next cast is made. In addition, I abhor taking the time to re-tie a leader to my braid, especially when the bite is good. I only use that heavy of a line when fishing really close to docks, and actually, seldom go higher than 12. Fluorocarbon is the tits, for sure, and if I'm using a leader, it's gonna be Fluoro.
I don't see how I could spend less on line. I'm sure you can calculate how far 6000 yards of line will go, and at the price of Excel and Power Pro, you'd likely be spending a fair amount more to keep 5 rigs spooled up in the time it would take me to need to buy more line. Of course, I keep my line out of the light, away from solvents, etc. so it stays fresh enough for use, but I'm happy with it. My braid disasters weren't my fault, I don't think, and as I say, I do use it, but I cannot imagine abandoning the mono because I don't have any problems with it that others won't have with braid, and for me, if it ain't broke...
I agree with you about flirting with trouble, hence my refusal to use my 6lb line around docks, reefs, or for big fish, but I have broken off braid, 25lb fluoro, the whole nine yards on barnacles and oysters. A heavy, active fish that puts sufficient pressure on the line to tighten it has no problem cutting it off on any sharp object, so I'm not feeling the advantage there, and if I'm gonna lose my bait, might as well not have to make up a leader, tie two knots, etc., to get back at it. And, as I've said, I believe in the course of a season, I will get more bites on my light mono than heavier line would produce. Even with a light fluoro leader, I have two knots to fail instead of one, and can see no other advantage to braid in light tackle angling, other than not having to change out the line as often.
But, as I am sure you know, fishing is all about confidence. If the time comes that I see for myself the need to change, I assure you, I will. thanks for the reply, see you on French's next fishing thread!
LOL! No, I don't think you can spend less on line. But about $15 a year isn't too bad. Down time to re-tie leaders is a pain, but that's why I carry as many rods as I do...2 rigged with jig heads for gulps, 2 swim baits, and one topwater. Re-tie, if necessary, during lunch. My fishing buddy does the same so if we are on fish, we don't stop. There is always a backup at arms length.
In the next month, fishing ought to get cranked up around here.
Tight lines!
Nah, it's not a money thing with me at all, anyway. I see how you get around some of the irritations I have with the braid/leader thing. I have more rods than I could take, but have a select few favorites I likely couldn't afford to replace now that I'm retired and have lost my guide status with my favorite rod company, Lamiglas. I'm also somewhat limited as to rod storage on my boat, ten rods wouldn't make it on my craft, five is just about max, and that's for both folks fishing. Add another fisherman, and things are just too tight.
I'm heading out to the great wild west for an extended camping trip in a couple of weeks, so I'll miss fishing around here in Oct., but the schoolies will keep me busy when I return. I am on the Middle Peninsula, in Mathews, Va. Are you on the Chesapeake Bay? Tight lines back atcha!
St Augustine, FL. I fished for several years in the tidal creeks north of St Aug...and I can obviously still do that. But last year we built a house on the south end of town just off one of the main tidal creeks. This fall is devoted to learning new spots closer by. I'm ready for the temp to drop and the rain to stop.
Have a safe and enjoyable trip!
You have a great deal of fishing available to you down there, and you don't need much boat to do it with, either. That's the biggest problem here, you need two or three different boats to access the available species, and we don't have near the skinny water action or the close in reefs that you enjoy. Not to mention the variety of tasty species that swim the waters there. I have often said that if I could do it over again, I'd have moved to Florida in my twenties, become a fishing guide in my thirties, then retired back to the mountains in my sixties. Oh well, life gets in the way sometimes. Enjoy your fall to come, I'll catch a big rainbow or cutbow for you when I'm in New Mexico, or Utah, or maybe Colorado.
Here's what's confusing.
Last week for my son's birthday, I bought ice cream from Food Lion, both vanilla and Neapolitan.
The regular vanilla was very good. However, the vanilla in the Neapolitan was very bland.
I would completely disagree with that. This is one of the five most talented teams we have ever fielded.
Even with Michael Brewer at the helm this was not one of the top five most talented teams Virginia Tech has fielded. Our top end talent is not only down, it is virtually missing.
We are down at quarterback. We are down at wide receiver. We are down at running back. Our offensive line is still a ?, but I saw things against Ohio State that I liked. Given that the other two games were more like scrimmages than live contests, I want to hold off assessing our offensive line. We are trending in the right direction, however.
Though I still believe we have a good defensive line, we are dramatically undersized at spots there. Our linebacking corps is as weak as I can remember. We have some pretty good talent in the defense of backfield and also some amazing talent in the defensive backfield.
I'll work with him here... at this juncture, "pretty good" would be Alexander (young) and Facyson (still working off rust), and "amazing" would be Fuller (because Fuller) and Clark (secret weapon).
Did I get it right?
Pretty much the idea. Thx
Ha! That was clumsily written. What I meant to communicate was this: we have 1-2 guys who are exceptionally talented back there. The rest are good players.
I really don't get this. We're on par, or better, than our usual recruiting in recent years. I'm not one to put full faith in star ratings, but they do give you a sense of talent level.
Motley 3* (87)
Lawson 4* (90)
Ford 4* (93)
Phillips 4* (90)
Hodges 4* (94)
Coleman 4* (91)
Edmunds 4* (90)
McMillian 3* (88)
McKenzie 4* (92)
Williams 4* (93)
yeah but that's all based on a 10* scale...so like the guy said, we're down at every thinkable position on the team... /s
I think it's more of a confusion between talent vs production. Also, hindsight is 20-20. Current players are at least on par, but they haven't produced like they should. Once Ford hits 1000 yards and our RBs continue to average over 4.5 yards per rush, then things will change. Currently our RBs are at ~5.5 yds per rush. Hopefully that number stays up there.
I agree that "stars" tend, in general and more importantly in the aggregate, to be pretty accurate predictors. Probably nobody argues with that.
The skill guys we have right now look like a clear step down at WR, QB but especially @ RB. jmo
I hope I'm wrong. They'll have plenty of opportunity to prove it.
Just giving what I believe to be a realistic assessment.
Again, I completely disagree with your assessment.
That's cool.
Makes for a far more interesting (and enlightening) message board when there is friendly disagreement.
Might have just set a new record for how much I can possibly disagree with one post.
Go ahead and put me in strongly disagree column. In 2008 we beat Furman 24-7, and 50+ on a power 5 member? You could count the times that happened without Michael Vick on one hand. I do not understand how you can say that the talent on offense is worse, please explain.
Can't comment on our OL because yet. I want to buy in, but have been burned by OL promises 5-6 too many times.
Aside from probably Kendall, I don't see a difference maker in the stop unit. Frankly, he's looking like he's not 100%, but I dunno. Rumors.
We have no NFL quality RB in my opinion (may I be proven wrong). David Wilson, Ryan Williams, Kevin jones, Lee Suggs and probably Darren Evans were all a notch or three above our RBs. No need to remind anyone of what CFB's teams lean toward offensively.
Our best QB is not NFL caliber and our second QB may or may not be ACC caliber. Brewer is a step down from LT who was a step down from TT. No need to introduce Motley into the conversation, imo. (Caveat: Lawson could be the trend breaker - fingers crossed)
We've put a few WRs into the league since the run began and usually had at least one Sunday talent type of guy. Admittedly, our guys are mostly young, but assessing it now, I see nobody with the talent of Eddie Royal, Andre Davis, Ernest Wilford, Danny Coale, Josh Morgan, or David Clowney.
So, that's why.
Hindsight is 20/20. There are nfl players on this roster that you will compare players to in the future.
McKenzie has more talent than Darren Evans...if he can get back to 100% you'll see it. Trey Edmunds is very under-appreciated by VT fans especially people like you who overlook him. Travon McMillian looks a LOT like Lee Suggs to me
I would not be surprised to see Shai put up more impressive numbers than DE one day, but I haven't seen it yet. I think Trey Edmonds is talented, but I don't think he has developed the vision (yet) to be a top 2 round draft pick (like Ru and DW). McMillian is young. We haven't seen him run between the tackles yet either. A lot of potential though.
All of these guys could be Hokie greats one day. But, for Saturday's game against ECU, I would take 2009 RW, 2011 DW, or 2008 DE (in that order) over any of our current backs in current form. Those three guys were just on another level.
There is A LOT of talent in the top third of this roster.
We're down , maybe WAY down, at QB (Vicks, Randall, Taylor) and MLB from those better teams, and both of those positions make a huge difference in performance.
But 75+ % of the starters on this team are likely future NFL draft picks. Put another way, of those that started against Purdue, who other than Motley and Huelskamp won't be in an NFL camp if they are healthy when they leave VT?
Speaking just current 1s and 2s offense. (In no particular order)
Guys i think get a very serious look at NFL camp barring unforseen....
Teller
Isaiah Ford
Rogers
Hodges
Malleck
Cline
Being overly conservative but I think there's a couple more guys in there too but coming off injuries and or young.
We do not have a world beater QB this year. But the situation looks a heck of a lot better.
Yes, we should have beaten a Purdue but we did, with ease. More ease than most of us expected.
I'm seeing improvement and some good looking stuff.
It's almost as if you and I are watching different teams.
glass half empty.
Not at all. I picked us to kick Purdue's butts (contra Vegas) because I think we have a lot more talent than Purdon't. Speaking of damned by faint praise.
All I'm doing is evaluating 2015's team and our recruiting trends.
Respectfully, I think you and all the other commentors are confusing "most talented," with "most talented offensive," team...We do have top 5 offensive talent, but we're not top 5 defensive talent for us, or top 5 special teams talent for us. So, if you meant, offense, specifically, yes...elsewise, must disagree.
That's a reasonable statement, by itself. But this team has the ability and willingness to hammer an outclassed opponent, which we haven't seen in recent years. Also, the change in playcalling (from Brewer's efficient short range passing to Motley's play-action explosiveness) indicates that we will use the personnel we have rather than forcing them into a system they're not suited for. (And no sign of the dysfunction of 2003.)
So, despite having less talent than, say, early 2000s, I still find this group easy to root for. I also feel like the final record (whatever it is) may reflect their actual ceiling, rather than squandered potential, which is much easier to stomach.
This is an excuse masquerading as a reason. VT is recruiting the same as it always has. And I'll bet when all is said and done, there will be roughly the same number of NFL draft picks off this roster as the average roster from '99-'11.
Every September - January:
Ehh...that was a bad team in Purdue. We are still squandering opportunities and making dumb mistakes....the same things that have led to losses like Maryland, Duke, GT, ECU, Wake, Cincy, etc. If we continue, we will be no better than the last 4 years
I don't mean to argue, but we still did put up 50+ points and that was in addition to playing conservatively throughout the whole 4th quarter. I'm starting to see that nothing makes people happy anymore, a win isn't even good enough but this is a different team then we have seen in the last 4 years... but only time will tell
"... but only time will tell"
Exactly!...and hopefully it tells a different story than what we have been seeing recently
I get what you're saying, and I agree.
But I also have to add... That Purdue team really does suck. I think Coach Foster said that they were "somewhere between Furman and OSU". That was actually wrong. Furman is better than Purdue.
51-24...in a game that wasn't nearly as close as the score. I don't care who you're playing, it's really hard to win that easily - particularly when running a balanced offense that isn't designed to have 20 possessions.
Are there some things to clean up? Absolutely. But the thing I'm seeing from this team (and expected, frankly) that was lacking over the last 3 years is playmakers. Not that there were no playmakers in recent years but there weren't many or they just weren't there yet. When you've got guys in all 3 phases who can make plays, you can play your B (or maybe worse) game and still beat teams you should beat. That's what I'm taking from this season so far.
Remember how, in the most recent of seasons, we had to be satisfied with beating bad teams by putting no more than 35 on the board?
And now we're wasting opportunities and making mistakes yet putting up 42 and 51 in consecutive weeks... but there's no improvement?
I look at it this way. It's not how you make the mistakes, it's how you recover from them. We were kinda bad at recovering from mistakes over the past 4 years. I haven't seen any indication that mistakes will hold us back to the point that we'll have to get "escape" wins from bad teams.
I am not an X's and O's guy, but Adonis Alexander...
Is this GIF in HD?
In Soviet Russia, HD is in GIF.
Your first few paragraphs nailed the sentiments of many Hokies, Pierson. In many ways, Saturday's win brought back memories of how VT Football should always look; us beating the snot out of the opponent in every phase of the game.
I share similar feelings as are stated in the article, but with a bit more optimism than I usually have. The reason?
During those years (at least as I remember it) when we were able to win 10 games, we lost games because the team (the offense in particular) seemed unprepared and lacked creativity/the ability to adjust during the course of the games that we seemed to be losing.... And this isn't necessarily true in every situation, just more of a general observation.
I have a bit more confidence this year simply because I trust the offensive staff to do a better job of preparing the kids on that side of the ball. Only time will tell if that confidence is warranted.
I think for me, the loss of Brewer changed my perception of the team I thought we'd have, and I am still trying to get the feeling back that I had before he went out. I have tried to feel good about the points, and I do understand that scoring 51 is big for us, but I'm still maybe a bit wary of what we'll be like for the rest of the year. I have also tried to feel confident about our D, while being a bit disappointed that I'm not seeing more of Dadi and Ekanem sacking the qb, and wanting, like Bud wants, to see more from that highly touted unit. I do understand that they are good, and I understand that hurries and knockdowns are real accomplishments, but for some reason, I still don't have the same feeling from them that I had hoped for.
So far, though, other than Brewer's injury, the only thing that I am really disappointed about is the continuing saga of unforced errors. That just has to stop.
I'm in the same boat, but....can I play devil's advocate here?
What if the reason we aren't seeing more sacks is because Bud doesn't want to show how he'll be generating those sacks to the other teams later in our schedule? What if...and I'm just spitballing here...we aren't getting sacks on purpose so we can rack them up more easily when they really matter? What if this is all about getting Ken and Dadi to work on other DE techniques that will make them more well-rounded players while we have the chance against the likes of Purdon't?
Not sure I'm down with the secrecy hypothesis, but I do think Bud could be up to something. I wonder if he's having the ends play more conservatively due to the instability at Mike. Maybe trying to keep them from getting too far upfield and leaving too many gaps? Also just spitballing.
Tell ya what, if that's the case, I'll be the first to applaud Bud for his brilliant obfuscation. I take him at his word, though, that he feels like such a highly touted group should be a bit more productive, but like I said, I know we're good on D, and I do expect to be highly ranked defensively at the end of the year. I'm just trying to explain the discomfort I still feel when thinking of how this year will play out. I assure you, I'm still high on Dadi et al, just a bit uncomfortable. I don't really buy into Bud schooling or scheming things to not produce sacks, though. Just doesn't seem like a Bud-like thing to do.
I'm thinking maybe the Ekanibal isn't 100% and Dadi comes flying in out of control a lot of the time.
Our DL has been getting a lot of pressure. They aren't getting sacks but they are pressuring the QB a ton.
I don't think anything was more painful than the 2008/2009 basketball season. We had 8 games decided by one possession (that's more than 25% of our games). We were 6-3 in ACC play, 16-7 overall with a road win over #1 wake forest, then lost 6 of our last 7 and found ourselves on the wrong side of the bubble.
If I die of a heart attack at a young age, Seth Greenberg and AD Vassillo will be receiving some of the blame.
I look at Saturday's game with this thought. We played a fairly sloppy game against a P5 team (admittedly a lower tier P5 team, but still one dangerous enough to beat people) and we still put up over 50 pts, and won handily. You can fix sloppy. You can't fix untalented or ugly (see: LOLUVA on both).
Honestly, I think this team might have the most talent that we've had in 10 years. We had a number of years where we really lacked any sort of talent at tailback (think back to the Kenny Lewis Jr years). Our O-line for the last 10 has been shoddy, and we really didn't recruit top WR talent, nor did we even think about making the TE into a weapon. Boone had a catch here and there, we had to move Chris Dregar from DE to just have a body.
Cam Phillips and Ford are better at this stage than Boykin and Coale...sure we had the years with Hyman, Royal, and Morgan, but we have a Rogers, Cline, Malleck, and Hodges. The only reason we need some depth at WR is to bring Ford or Phillips on for breathers or in case of injury. We have no need to actually play 3 or more WRs.
I can't help but be excited by the numbers and performance of the offense. We're two games away from knowing exactly how good the team is. If we maul ECU and Pitt, then we're going to win the coastal.
On offense, I'll take the 2010 team over this one, and with the exception of TE, I don't think it's close.
Tyrod > Brewer
Boykin/Coale > Ford/Phillips (I could switch my opinion on this by end of season)
RW/DE/DW >>> JC/Trey/McMillian
2010 OL > 2015 OL
I'm not at all sold on this point. 1) I think it's too early to really tell what we have on OL this year to make a fair comparison. 2) I don't actually think our OL was that good in 2010. The pure athleticism of our backfield really masked any deficiencies up front. 3) Searles might not be the top-notch OL coach that everyone wishes we had but I still think he's head-and-shoulders above Newsome as a dedicated OL coach.
Tyrod is definitely more athletic than Brewer but I think Brewer has a much better understanding of the game, concepts, coverages, and progressions. That's not Taylor's fault though, that's just pure coaching. LT3 said that before Loeffler came in, he didn't even know what progressions were. If LT3 didn't know what progressions were, what's to say Taylor did? Taylor was a master of the scramble drill. If his
firstonly read wasn't open, he would buy time until someone broke free from coverage. Overall, I think Taylor was more athletic and had a higher ceiling, but the coaching staff was never able to unleash his full potential. Conversely, Brewer isn't as athletic but the coaches seem to be able to get the most out of him. I would almost call this a push.Boykin and Coale were great later in their careers. Ford and Phillips are playing as true Sophomores. I think Ford is ahead of Phillips at this time and by the time Ford is a Junior I think he'll be arguably better than both Boykin and Coale. Phillips is a little harder to gauge but he does have talent so I think this position group is a push.
I'll agree with you on the RBs though.
It's definitely a tough comparison given that we have a complex scheme now, and we didn't have a scheme in 2010.
I think Becton/Nosal/Warren/Brooks/DeChristopher was our best line since I arrived on campus in 2008. I think we have two players today who could have started on that OL (Teller and Mclaughlin) - but I'll default to the experts (french). This could change by end of season.
I agree that our coaching staff wasn't able to take full advantage of Tyrod's talent, but, he clearly has the ability to learn an offense, otherwise he wouldn't be an NFL starter. I'd pick 2010 Tyrod over 2015 Brewer in Lefty's system, and I'd ABSOLUTELY pick 2010 Tyrod over 2015 Brewer for O'Cainspring's "system"
Again, I'd take 2010 Boykin/Coale over what I see now from Ford/Phillips, although this is absolutely subject to change.
I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this point. It's impossible to say for sure so both of us will spin tires trying to make an argument. The last thing I'll say, which is more in regard to coaching and scheme and less so to pure talent, is that the OL of 2015 looks like it's doing its job much better than the OL of 2010 IMO. Again, these two opinions are very subjective and we're kind of comparing tomatoes to sausages. On a pure talent level, you may have a point but it's impossible to really know for sure and I just can't agree that, all things considered, the 2010 OL is greater than the 2015 OL
That was kind of my thought process. All things equal (coaching, scheme, etc) I'd take the 2010 line over the current line (again, could change by end of season).
I think I see where you're coming from. I still think it's an impossible task to compare the two because they're all under completely different circumstances. That said, I don't think talent is everything on OL. You can have the 5 most talented OL players but if they don't gel or communicate well they won't amount to much.
So where is this somewhat pervasive sentiment coming from? The line has shown steady improvement throughout Stacy's first season and into his second. He is grooming Wyatt Teller into an all-ACC guard and has brought Nijman along enough to be serviceable in live games in the course of a summer. Besides TKP writing staff's disagreement with his practice of allotting practice snaps, what has Stacy failed to do to make people think he isn't a great line coach?
this is a great point. I personally don't have any issue with Searles. From where I sit, he's done a good job. The OL looks better now than it has in years. I'm basing that sentiment on the writing staff's published opinions of him. I'm not really smart enough to argue with French on his analysis of the OL coaching or play so I defer to his opinion.
edit: I don't really care that my quote was cut off...here is the full version though
I only say this because I don't share the sentiment that Searles might not be the top-notch OL coach that everyone wishes we had. I like him and I like the results on the field. But I am aware that there have been some fans who are skeptical of him and who thought there may have been better options available at the time he was hired. Again, I'm not nearly smart enough to evaluate that kind of stuff so I can't really say one way or the other. Based on what I've seen, I like him.
I guess you could say he was our second choice, because he stepped in when Grimes left after only one year. And Searels's record before he came here was somewhat checkered, wasn't it? I guess that's what someone would mean by "might not be the top-notch." Doesn't mean he isn't damned good at his job. "Top-notch" is one of those terms that means different things to different people.
How does getting hired because Grimes left make him a second choice?
Yeah, I don't think he was even on the market when we replaced Newsome. I know everyone was in love with Grimes, and I do believe Jeff started a culture change here, but from my vantage point, I think we might have fallen up. Searels seems like a really good fit for what we try to do on offense, and he's bringing back the mean streak not seen in Blacksburg since the Jake Grove era.
Yeah, Searels is a coach that got the OL confident enough to invent the Hammer award.
I see this as no small thing.
excellent question...I think we've got to credit Stacy for coaching up our OL and helping them to play better as a unit
I cannot state how much I disagree with 2010 OL> 2015 OL. Stacy has turned our OL into an asset from a significant liability. Motley was able to stand in the pocket and throw. It has been years since our QB hasn't had to run for his life after 1.5 seconds.
... regardless of opponent.
Whoa there big fella - This Oline has pushed around everyone its faced --- yes, including OSU --> they were driving those mothers, and opening holes --yes blew a pickup and got Brewer hurt, but they were toe to toe..
TT's lines were just loving the improv and incredible backs that hardly needed a hole.
This, I think, is the most notable sign of improvement I've seen. When something goes wrong and a defender comes free, you can point to one lineman and say, "Oh, he missed his assignment right there," or, "He was supposed to scrape," etc. When Newsome's lines let four defender's into the backfield one second after the snap, I couldn't tell you who was supposed to do what, and I'm guessing neither could the players.
Disagree on the 2010 OL > 2015 OL. If you are saying this OL is bad because one hit on Brewer and a communication bust that lead to a bad alignment and a failure to site adjust by a true freshman, you need to go back and watch Nosal and Lainer getting rag dolled a bit more.
I might be crazy French, but I really think this might be the best pass-blocking O-line I've ever seen from VT, and I've been watching since '02...We have been really good in run blocking too, but I remember watching those lines from like '07 to '09 grade people all day long...couldn't pass block it felt like, but dang, they flat ran over some people.
"Hi, I'm crazy French and I have Cable"
Don't be Cable French.