Fresh off a disappointing loss at East Carolina, several Virginia Tech coaches and players met with the media today in advance of Saturday's ACC opener against Pittsburgh. Several of the day's hottest topics are broken down below.
Video of Frank and Shane Beamer's Opening Statements
Frank Beamer Discusses Saturday's "Exhibition" Comment
I asked Frank Beamer about his post-game comments on Saturday in which he compared non-conference games to exhibitions. While Beamer didn't backtrack on the controversial comparison, he did attempt to clarify his intent.
"Well, I think anyone that knows the business, knows that the conference games are what are important," said Beamer. "Like I said, I'll go right back. If you can win your non-conference games, you got a chance to win a national championship. If you don't, anytime that you win puts you in a better position for a bowl game. But when you start the conference, now if you win that, you're going to the Orange Bowl. And every win that you can win in conference puts you in a better position. I think anybody that understands the business understands exactly what I was saying. And that's not to say non-conference games are not important. Like I said, if you got ambition to win a national championship or go to a really good bowl game, every one of those games are certainly important too. And hopefully we've learned something from playing those games."
While this year's Orange Bowl happens to fall in the College Football Playoff rotation, Beamer's underlying point remains valid.
Running Back Rotation Remains Unclear
No tailback received more than 7 carries against East Carolina on Saturday, an alarming statistic that Shane Beamer attributed to playing from behind for much of the afternoon.
"A lot of that had to do with the game," said Beamer. "We had to throw down the stretch quite a bit. We were trying to come back. Sam and Travon are more of our receiving type running backs. There were some plays in there where we hit a play downfield and then we immediately went fast and tried to get back to the line of scrimmage as quickly as we could, and in those situations, we're not gonna sub anyone because we don't want to give the defense a chance to sub."
Travon McMillian was the most productive of the group, and Beamer was asked if he's looking to get the redshirt freshman additional carries. His long-winded answer did little to clear up the already muddied waters in the running back room.
"I think he (McMillian) can be an everything tailback. He's shown that," said Beamer. "I'd like to get Travon more carries, but I'd like to get JC more carries. And I'd like to get Trey more carries. I apologized to Trey and JC yesterday. JC's our starting tailback and played seven plays against East Carolina. Trey's a co-starter in our opinion and played 15 plays, or something along those lines...You guys saw JC Coleman at the end of last season go over 100 yards in three out of his last four games and be the MVP of the bowl game. Trey Edmunds in 2013 had a heck of a season and I said it in the preseason, 'I think he's got a chance to have a bigtime season,' talking about Trey. And I still do. Having said that, we'd like to get Travon more involved as well. He hit a couple jet sweeps against East Carolina where he broke some tackles and I know his yards per carry average up there is higher than those other guys, sure. And Travon brings a lot to the table. I told him as well that I'd like to continue to get him going. But we've gotta give JC and Trey an opportunity to get into the flow of the games and East Carolina really did a good job up front stopping our base run game with our running backs. We were able to run the quarterback and we were able to get on the perimeter with the jet sweeps, but as far as being able to go right at them and those type runs, we didn't have quite the success that we would like. That took those guys (JC and Trey) out of the game a little bit. We've gotta be able to run the football, run our base runs and get Trey and JC going as well."
"The thing with Shai is he's still a little rusty. Don't think he's 100%," said Beamer. He can certainly run the ball physical and run you over, you see that. His make you miss ability is still coming along. That guy's had, the fact that we're even sitting here having this conversation is a testament to him and our training staff. He's coming off 2 ACL injuries in two years and one that happened less than a year ago."
However, Beamer didn't rule out a potential return for Marshawn Williams, another Hokies tailback recovering from a torn ACL suffered in 2014.
"Marshawn's the one that would like to play this year," said Beamer. "Obviously he's the one, he tore his ACL later than Shai did last year. So the fact that we're having a conversation about his availability is a testament to Marshawn and our training staff."
But Beamer did admit that with an already full running back room, Williams' chances of returning to the field in 2015 remain largely dependent on the health of the other tailbacks.
"That's what I've told Marshawn. We've got some quality guys at the running back position," said Beamer. "We don't need to muddy the water and just play if you're gonna play a few plays a game. If you're gonna play this year it's either because of injury, which knock on wood we've been fortunate, or you come out and you show that you're clearly better than those other 3 guys that we have right now. And if that's the case, we'll get you out there."
Brenden Motley Tallies 19 Carries Against ECU
Harking back to the Logan Thomas era, Brenden Motley ran the ball 19 times for 85 yards and a touchdown in the Hokies' loss to ECU. While rainy conditions certainly played into Motley's increased rushing load, Scot Loeffler said the East Carolina scheme dictated a heavy dosage of quarterback runs.
"A lot of reasons. We want to run the tailback, as you well know. But we also, we're gonna play to our strengths," said Loeffler. "In that game, we felt the quarterback had the ability to help us obtain rushing yards. We're not going to...if we have the ability to run the quarterback, if it's called for, we're gonna do it. Do we want to hand the ball to the tailback? Absolutely. That's who we are. But in that game, it was what they were doing and where we were at, we had to play to our strengths and it gave us the best opportunity to rush the football on that day."
But Motley, far from the physical specimen that Logan Thomas was, said he's willing to carry a significant rushing load if that's what the team needs.
"If Coach needs me to run 20, 25 times or if he needs me to run twice during the game, I'll do whatever we need for the team, for the offense. It doesn't matter to me," said Motley. "Everybody's body is gonna be hurting the next day. So if needs me, like I said, to run the ball that many times a game, I'll do it."
Running Quarterbacks Continue to Stifle Hokies' Defense
In what has become an all too familiar sight for Hokies fans, East Carolina's James Summers decimated the Hokies' defense on the ground all afternoon.
"Of course, a lot of people will see the game and think it's the rain, but it just comes down to us. What we did, gap fits, all that stuff has to do with it," said linebacker Deon Clarke. "He (Summers) came in and got 169 rushing yards. Coach (Foster) never likes stuff like that. He came in, did a good job. We just gotta tackle better, that's all basically it was. Just gotta tackle better."
And in a Bud Foster run defense, every missed tackle is magnified.
"It's just bad, knowing that if we did made the tackle, the play would have been over and he wouldn't have got that many yards," said Clarke. "Missed tackles are a big thing Coach (Foster) always put us on...Missed tackles, you can't do that on Coach Foster's defense. Missed tackles will just pop a play wide open."
The Head Hokie was also clearly impressed with the dynamic Summers, and added that he was pleased with how his own quarterback ran the football.
"Well part of the other day is you need tackling," said Beamer. "Count the missed tackles we had against him, and he had something to do with that. He's a talented kid. But anytime I think a quarterback can run, our quarterback got some tremendous yardage the other day. Anytime your quarterback can run, that adds another element to the game. It's another guy that you gotta account for. I love playing with those quarterbacks that can run. That's just the way it is."
Kendall Fuller's Availability Remains Unclear
Kendall Fuller sat out against East Carolina with a knee injury and is due to be re-evaluated by the Virginia Tech medical staff today.
Even so, Frank Beamer said he considered Fuller's chances of playing against Pittsburgh "very doubtful."
Donovan Riley, a potential replacement for Fuller, sang a different tune.
"Kendall's going to be fine," said Riley. "Kendall's gonna be great. He's gonna do what he has to do to get himself back on the field."
More information on Fuller's condition should be revealed at tomorrow's media availability. It's worth noting that Terrell Edmunds is listed as the top RCB in this week's depth chart.
Penalties Remain a Problem
In what is becoming a disturbing trend, penalties wreaked havoc on the Hokies once again against East Carolina.
However, this time around the referees may have drawn more ire from Hokie Nation than the Hokies players and coaches themselves. So while Scot Loeffler may not have agreed with some of the more controversial calls, he was clear about what his offense needs to focus on.
"We have to worry about what we can control," said Loeffler. The three that we can control is we had a young center on the road for the (second) time that didn't snap the ball on time. Those are things that we can control. He just couldn't hear the cadence, plain and simple. And then the formation penalty on the touchdown, that's something we can control. The other penalties are judgemental penalties. I've watched every single one of them as I do every week. I have my opinions on them and I'm not gonna share my opinions with you."
One of the most frustrating — and to be honest, head-scratching — calls from Saturday's loss was the targeting penalty that resulted in Sean Huelskamp's ejection. Deon Clarke remains unsure of what exactly Huelskamp did wrong, but is confident the linebacking corps can move on.
"Oh yeah, as soon as the play, as soon as we seen the flag, the whole defense was mad," said Clarke. "I mean Sean did what he had to do. The quarterback was running to him and Sean, he just leaned in a little bit. He didn't even really hit him on the head. But it's just one of those calls that you really can't judge that much. Yeah, they threw him out. But he's gonna come back next half and do what he gotta do to stay in the game."
The Hokies hope Andrew Motuapuaka will be able to return from his injury this weekend, but if not, true freshman Carson Lydon will be in line for his first career start. While starting a true freshman at middle linebacker in your conference opener may be less than ideal, Frank Beamer remains confident in Lydon's abilities.
"Lydon did a good job (against East Carolina)," said Frank Beamer. "He got in there. He's been on some special teams and solid guy, solid player. Smart. We've got a lot of confidence in Lydon."
Looking Ahead to Pittsburgh
Just a field goal away from a 3-0 start, the Panthers will challenge the Hokies in all three phases of the game on Saturday. Led by first year head coach Pat Narduzzi, the Pittsburgh defense reminds Scot Loeffler of the vaunted Michigan State defenses that Narduzzi led in years past.
"They're the 17th rated defense in America," said Loeffler. "They stop the run. They're only giving up 92 yards a game rushing. They're giving up a little under 200 passing. They get off the field. They're 28.6 percentage on third down which is outstanding. I know Coach Narduzzi well. I had the opportunity to play against him a few times whenever I was in the Big Ten. He's an excellent coach. Their defense brings problems. They're tough. They fly around. They're super athletic. There's a reason they're the 17th rated defense in America right now."
And despite losing star running back James Connor for the season with a torn MCL, the Hokies defense still expects the Panthers to challenge them on the ground early and often.
"It's gonna be a physical game," said senior cornerback Donovan Riley. "They're gonna run the ball. They're gonna pass the ball when they need to. We're just gonna have to stop the run early."
Additional Quotes
Shane Beamer
ON SHAI MCKENZIE REDSHIRTING:
He's been practicing well. He was cleared, don't know if he's quite 100%. It's very similar to the conversation we had with Trey Edmunds last year going into the William & Mary game. Trey felt like he was probably 100%. We kind of didn't quite see it that way and he didn't play much in those opening games last year and then came along and kept getting better. I think Shai's thinking is 'let me have this year,' if we're able to apply for this hardship (waiver) and get this year back, have this year, and be ready to roll next year. We got kind of a crowded backfield right now and I think he'd like to be 100% and full speed ahead when he is full speed ahead."
MORE ON THE RUNNING BACK ROTATION:
"It's a constant evaluation and all those guys are good in protection. They all bring a lot to the table. It's not all of a sudden anoint Travon McMillian the starting tailback. There's a lot more to it than that. Travon's got the ability to be a starting tailback and he's done nothing to deter our thinking on that. It's JC Coleman and Trey Edmunds are older guys that to me have proven that they can be the starting running back here at Virginia Tech. JC showed that last season. Trey showed that in 2013 and did some great things for us in the North Carolina game last year. We've gotta give them a chance to get going. Whether Travon was in the backfield Saturday, or JC and Trey, we ran into some looks that it was going to be tough for those guys to be successful. And I know everyone sees 'Ok, we handed the ball to Travon and he got a couple things accomplished,' but there were a couple times Travon was in there at the tailback position and we ran conventional runs with him and East Carolina brought some pressure that we didn't do a great job of picking up and the play didn't look so hot. JC's a guy that we need to continue to get more involved with the jet sweeps and things like that. We like JC out in space on the perimeter. That's something that he brings to the table. And we've got to continue to look at that and those guys gotta continue to improve. And Sam Rogers is another one. You want to talk about yards per carry, Sam Rogers when he gets in there, he's a got a high yards per carry and does a lot of stuff as well. So I like where all those guys are. They'd all like to play more. They'd all like to carry the ball more. They're all competitors. But we also gotta (do) what gives us the best chance to be successful. And Saturday it was running the quarterback. I hope I'm not standing here, if I'm here next Monday, I hope I'm not standing up here talking about Brenden Motley carrying the ball twenty, twenty-five times or whatever he had to do on Saturday. We want to limit the pounding that he's taking, as well."
ON DER'WOUN GREENE NOT BEING ABLE TO PLAY AT EAST CAROLINA:
"I believe it was a foot, I believe. He didn't do much in practice last week and then we got him in pregame and was hoping he was gonna be able to go. I believe it was a foot injury that he hurt towards the end of the Purdue game. But hopefully we'll be able to get him back out there this week. Very optimistic that he'll return."
Scot Loeffler
ON TRAVON MCMILLIAN:
"We really like Travon. He's a young player that's getting better from week-to-week. You can line him up in the backfield. You can line him up on the perimeter and throw him the football and run jet sweeps. But we've got other guys in that room that have similar characteristics. Just like I've said from the beginning, we're gonna try to use all of the available talent that we can to help us win."
ON BRENDEN MOTLEY:
"I think he's doing a great job. Coming off the bench and being the backup quarterback and producing the way he has, has been very good for our team and for our offense. He's doing a great job. Win, lose or draw, you'll always hear me come in here and (say) it's impossible to play a perfect game. There's always 3, 4, 5, sometimes 6 things that a guy needs to change to enhance his game. When we win, they're not blown up. When we lose, they are blown up. That's part of our business. That's part of playing quarterback. But to answer your question, I think he's doing a really, really good job. He's a guy that's getting better from week to week. He's feeling more comfortable being the starter. I'm really proud of that guy. And we're also having, to follow up on that, I think there's some guys around him that (have) stepped up like we asked and they're really playing well around him. It's a team effort. Whenever we lost Michael Brewer, it was a very tough situation, but our team's embraced it. Brenden's embraced it. He's doing a good job."
ON PITTSBURGH DEFENSE:
"They're doing very similar things to what he did at Michigan State. And just like I said, schematically, they're different. They're tough. They bring problems to the table. They're a pressure oriented defense. In your face. Bump and run coverage on the outsides. They present problems. We're gonna have to, again, play our best football game to give ourselves a chance to win."
Donovan Riley
ON HELPING GREG STROMAN THROUGH STRUGGLES:
"As a senior, you just have to embrace the role of being more selfless than selfish. When those plays happened, you just have to encourage him and tell him to pick his head up because being a defensive back, you have to have a short memory. It's about moving on to the next play, not carrying the last play on.
Frank Beamer
ON GREG STROMAN'S PERFORMANCE AT EAST CAROLINA:
Stroman's got good talent, he just got in there and we got him lined up a couple times. He kinda got on a roll and couldn't get off of it there for a while. He's a good player. Part of being a defensive back is you gotta forget that last play. I think he's got the ability to do that. He needs to come out and have a good week at practice."
ON AJ HUGHES' ACROBATIC PUNT FOLLOWING HIGH SNAP:
"I think he just reacted. He did a heck of a job. AJ's really an athletic guy. I think a talented guy, but an athletic guy. I thought, in the end, it was a tremendous play. For a while there, I just wanted him to kick it out of the end zone. Then I was like 'oh my goodness, what's gonna happen?' But in the end, when he kicked it, I said 'Good play. Nice job.' Went through about five different deals on that one."
Comments
and that's what we get when implementing the LT playbook!
So he apologized to his two upperclassmen who did absolutely nothing all day. Wonder how Travon feels about this.
I know i'd be pretty pissed.
It's not the playbook, or the plays, or the coordinator. It's the RB coach. Leave a guy in there for at least two sets of downs...swapping them every-other play leaves them all cold and numb to the flow.
YOU CAN'T BE A NICE GUY TO EVERYONE, SHANE!
Seriously, I wish that Shane would just sit two of our backs down, say "You're both talented and a real asset to this team. However, game time carries are going to (RB) and (RB). I need you to stay engaged, though, because if those guys go down, you're my dudes."
And then rinse and repeat his top two until garbage time.
Bingo. Shane seems too worried about their feelings. Some are senior college athletes, I'm sure they'll get over it and realize that it's what's best for the team. And if not, who cares? It's the nature of competition. Can you imagine having him as a head coach like some have said? It'd be a disaster.
Personally and I know I'm not the only one who thinks Shane will make a great FCS and eventually low tier FBS Head Coach.
Based on what...?
Coaching experiance, how the players seem to relate to him, his work in the run up to the bowl game.
He's a nice guy, and has great ties to VT's program, but he's COMPLETELY unproven.
Right which is why I said FCS HC then low tier FBS HC.
I have to admit I think you are in fact the only one that thinks that. Shane is a great guy but he has shown nothing to think he is a good coach at this stage - at VT at least. Recruiting has been a disaster. RB rotation has been a disaster. I don't think any of his RBs have improved under his watch. JC, Trey et al have not improved. I think he is in charge of kick return and that has been anything but impressive the last few years. Special teams in general in which he assists the big man have been mediocre at best.
He was great at attending the press conferences leading up to the bowl game but not sure that means you're a head coach. I hope he figures it out but have seen no proof otherwise.
This got me thinking. He's been good at handling the media and overall team stuff, but unimpressive in playcalling, player development, and recruiting.
Maybe he'd be good as an administrative-type head coach. He can hire people good at the actual football stuff to do that while he does the schmoozing and press conferences and overall team management.
I agree. I Don't like how he handles RBs (a lot of that is on packages) but i like how he handled the team in the bowl just year. He's had a good career, worked his way up thru good coaches and programs.
You play to win the game, Shane, and to win the game you play the best players. Travon should easily be getting 15-18 carries a game. I like JC and Trey, but I want this team to win more than anything, try something/someone else.
Any of them should be getting 15-18 carries. If , given that amount, prove they don't get the job done, then give the other guy a shot. Shane has proven he has no earthly idea how to rotate RBs. You need a 1, a 2, and possibly a 3. He seems to think he can go with 1A, 1B,1C and it'll work. It hasn't yet and he hasn't figured that out. JC was good when he was "the guy". Trey was good when he was "the guy" (admittedly, neither was great) - Beamer refuses to have "the guy" now and it hurts all the RBs and it'll hurt us trying to get other RBs in the future. Hey come play for me and I'll give you 5-8 carries a game.
even GT team that plays 3 running backs at a time (and if you count the QB 4) has a rotation of 60%-40%-20% and does a better job of splitting carries than we do. its sad. :(
name carries yards avg long TDs
Patrick Skov 60 263 4.4 21 (TD) 5
Marcus Marshall 20 235 11.8 64 (TD) 2
Broderick Snoddy 16 175 10.9 48 0
Justin Thomas 48 158 3.3 26 3
Matthew Jordan 6 90 15.0 65 (TD) 1
Clinton Lynch 8 79 9.9 45 (TD) 1
Qua Searcy 13 76 5.8 31 1
Brady Swilling 13 67 5.2 27 1
Marcus Allen 7 56 8.0 17 (TD) 1
TaQuon Marshall 6 50 8.3 18 0
Tim Byerly 7 42 6.0 14 1
Isiah Willis 4 21 5.3 13 1
Ryan Braswell 4 6 1.5 3 0
Someone alert the mods. I think a UVA student has gotten into 904's account.
Any bee will tell you that a Paul Johnson-coached running back is worth 1.2 of any other team's backs.
A GT RB in Paul Johnson's system is like a QB in a Mike Leach system. They're gonna get their stats no matter what.
To me, this says, "some people are competing with ambitions to win a national championship, but not us. We just focus on winning our division." It doesn't make me feel good about his statement on Saturday either. I'm looking for him to explicitly tell me that our goal is to win a national championship and that we intend to do that by first winning our non-conference games, then compete for our conference championship and win. And go from there.
It seems to me that things are backwards to him. Like he's focused on winning only the conference championship and if we can do that, and we just happen to have won our non-conference games, then we can change the goal to winning the national championship. But why can't we have both goals to start the season? You can't reach the stars if you're only shooting for the moon.
Remember after losing to Kansas (friggin KANSAS!!), Beamer said something to the effect of "I guess I have to stop looking at bowl games as rewards for the players and actually try to win them from now on."? I was blown away that a coach wasn't doing everything in his power to win. Explained some of the head scratcher calls he had made in the past.
I think if Frank was speaking in the context of the entirety of the program....this comment would bother me more. It's another poor choice of words on Frank's part.
Before this season, who on this board thought that THIS team would be able to run the table? Without Mike Brewer......
Y'all, Frank Beamer wants to win the National Championship but he knows what he's got in 2015 (which by the way, happens to be a lot better offensively than anything we've seen in years) and it just isn't a National Championship team right now.. What is pissing me off about all of this is that he's conveying it so poorly.
To me, it looks like he was realistic in that we knew we weren't playing for a national championship before the end of the 3rd quarter in our first game.
Do you think Gus Malzahn was being realistic going into the 2013 season coming off a season in which Auburn went 3-9 overall and 0-8 in the SEC? Playing a safety at QB and his first year in the program. If he had been thinking "realistically" he would have thought, best cast scenario they make it to a bowl game. Yet they go 11-1 regular season, win the SEC Championship game and go play for the National Title in which they probably should have won. I get the "being realistic" part to an extent when you are mid-major team or a tiny football school. Not when you are in a P5 conference and a top 25 program in the country. No matter what personnel you have on your team, if you don't go into the season and each game thinking you can win, I think that shows you aren't confident in yourself as a coach.
This was my exact point yesterday. Frank goes into every season being happy if we win our division. The ultimate goal of a national championship just isn't in his mind.
Pardon me, but it seems you're struggling to decode Beamerspeak.
When Coach Beamer says "you" he means "us" or "we" or "Virginia Tech". It's frequently his speaking style to frame a thought as if it were coming from the listener's perspective when he's really describing his (or the programs) thoughts or viewpoints. When describing situations/goals/etc he also skips over a lot of details rather than saying them out loud, because they're implied/obvious to a 30 year coaching veteran.
The downside of this is that his quotes can be kind of awkward at times and easy pickings for people looking to criticize him or twist his words.
How do you interpret his statements then?
He's saying that it's important to win OOC games because winning them puts you in position to contend for a playoff spot (if you follow up with a conference championship). But even if you don't win all your OOC games and you're not in contention for the playoffs anymore, you still want to win as many as you can. Also, even if you lose some OOC games, you can damn well still win your conference and go to major bowl, so don't go in the tank because of a couple of OOC losses.
You'll forgive me if I maintain faith in Frank's inherent honesty, "if you got ambition to win a national championship or go to a really good bowl game, every one of those games are certainly important too." That's not unclear. That's saying, we don't care about those games, we want to win the ACC, then we'll see about trying to do more. Removing the empty trophy case, wasn't saying "we want to win a national championship," it was saying, "we have no expectation of winning a national championship" and that too, was not unclear. You're welcome to continue to feel otherwise, I know I ignored the naysayers of Beamer's decline for years...You'll forgive the rest of us for not having the same willingness to accept mediocrity...
DBU hit the nail on the head. Beamer uses a lot of "you" when he talks. There is no way he was saying that he doesn't want to win a national championship or go to a major bowl.
replace it with we, or I then. and add, "They're exhibition games, they're preseason games."
WE get, "...if (we've) got ambition to win a national championship or go to a really good bowl game, every one of those games are certainly important..." but "They're exhibition games, they're preseason games."
Sorry, but I'm done talking about this. He said it, he stands by it. It's clear. It's unacceptable.
Whatever. You just strung together a bunch of quotes to make your own meaning. It's obvious there is nothing Beamer can say to change your opinion. Have fun being miserable, I just don't get it.
Me either.
Anyone who was at practice today or even walked by would be able to tell you that your thoughts on Frank Beamer are flat-out incorrect. The man wants to win. Badly. Every single game.
Beamer 's clarifications don't soothe me, if anything it makes it more clear he does not view every matchup equally. Not good.
I'd say he views all wins equally but not losses. I agree, but I also admit that I must be in the minority based on the reactions over the last couple of days. The ironic thing is that we have spent decades ignoring the boring coachspeak that comes from beamer, and now every word is scrutinized.
Part of that is a cultural shift in the last 8 years or so. Part of that is the fact that our record is mediocre, so now we're actually looking for answers.
Well, I guess we just don't know or understand "the business"!
Either Beamer's attitude, OR the way he articulates his thoughts (with the media, recruits, and his players) is poor. A premier head coach shouldn't have issues with either.
What I don't understand is how our defense can be so awful at defending against mobile quarterbacks when they practice against one every day, and have for many many years now.
#YellowJerseys
At first I thought you were talking about Georgia Tech.
Are the practice squad qbs in yellow too? We've had a lot of mobile backups over the years too
Followed by
How can an "everything tailback" be a third option
If JCC and Trey are co-starters then I think that makes McMillian 2d string....technically speaking of course
Why dont we just run the ball every play and rotate the backs so Shane wont have to worry about hurting one of the running backs feelings? It doesnt matter the production as long as they all get the same amount. JC, Trey, McMillian and who else???
This rotation thing has been a serious problem for this team and very unprofessional. A coach doesnt just rotate players in to keep them happy. It is up to the player to earn the carries. That's why there is a first, second and third string. All of these players arent of equal talent and ability, there is one that is better for this team and needs to be on the field being the most productive. This sh*t started in 2012 and the whole running back position has been a joke ever since. In my opinion this team as far as college football teams has been a joke since 2012. Look at the games we have lost and the manner we lost them. Thank goodness we somehow beat Ohio State last year or this whole situation from top to bottom would be looked at different. The game Saturday was just more of the same ineptness we have seen in the last 3 plus years. It reminded me way too much of that Munchie Legeaux disaster at FedEx a couple of years ago. We are going to get embarrassed in the ACC by several teams and it might start Saturday with Pitt. I have a feeling we are going to be seeing a lot of #15. UNC, GT, Miami all should be a lot of fun.
If I have any advice for Hokie fans it is watch the game if you have nothing else to do, but dont let it ruin your Saturday. Let's hope we beat UVa and enjoy that streak because that is all that is left of the good ol days.
Marshawn and shai were on their way to being the two feature backs last year before injury. Now, I'd imagine McMillian is on his way up the ladder. It's not like there has been a Ryan Williams on the roster the last several years. It wasn't long ago there was high praise for trey, I even remember getting blasted for suggesting it would be a decent idea to at least consider him at linebacker, and I was blasted. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know Shane is a good or bad rb coach because it seems he has been dealt a strange hand to manage.
It has been an odd situation, I agree. Its been a mix of injuries, suspensions and everything else. Think if Holmes wasnt a felon and was still in the mix.
Just wait till Drew Harris enrolls....then how awkward is it going to be???
On the running back rotation...
Regardless, I still support these kids that give 120% to our beloved #Hokies...
To everybody railing on Shane for the running back rotation, this quote from Loeffler has me going "hmmmmm...":
Maybe I'm reading that incorrectly, but it sounds like Loeffler may be encouraging the even spread of carries some, too. And for the record, don't read this as a Loeffler-bashing post, because I'm pretty damn happy with the job he's been doing. I'm just not yet totally convinced that the RB rotation is that big of a deal at the moment, nor that they won't fix it if does become a big deal.
Feel free to check the ACC rb post and see we're 1 of 3 teams to use 3 rbs evenly.
The other two- Syracuse and Wake Forrest.
I just did, and I'll say the same thing I said there - Great work. And I agree that 'Cuse and Wake aren't great company when it comes to football.
I tend to stay neutral and not criticize or speak my mind (you can see that this is the first comment I've posted on here). All I want to say is that I fell in love with the coach and the team that WANTED a national championship in addition to a conference championship....even when it was just a shot in the dark. I've been around since the Druckenmiller era so I have rode this roller coaster through the highest highs and the lowest lows. This is the by far the lowest I've ever felt. Frank publicly says that a NC is no longer even something they want??? What program is this? Listen, I'm level headed and know we're so far away from that right now but why would the HC say that it's not even a goal? I love Frank, always have....I guess I'm just confused. Why is our program going backwards?
I'm sure Whit will be pleased to know the coaches are openly admitting that winning a national title is not our eventual goal. I'm sure he loves hearing this while he's trying to sell off the remaining Bristol tickets.
After the firestorm yesterday I wasn't expecting a double down on the sentiment today. And yet, here we are. It's sad but it's an open confirmation our coaches are content with our status quo the last few years and they've stopped trying to better themselves and the team. We have peaked under Beamer and we are not going to improve until the replacement is named.
Except no one said this.
First and foremost, Frank stuck his foot in his mouth on Saturday. No two ways about it. But break down what he said today:
OK, so acknowledgment that the only way you're in the conversation for the national title is if you basically win everything and start the season solid (this gets you into the polls and into the conversation).
Next best thing after you drop a game or two OOC is to win your conference. There's a logical progression here.
Expecting to win a national title any given year is a fool's errand. I've said before a few times, in order to be in contention for the big trophy, you've got to consistently win or challenge for your conference title for several consecutive years. If you can do this in P5 FBS football, that means you're recruiting and coaching well. Clearly we're not there because we've had our down years, and we didn't capitalize on our chances years ago. But nowhere has anyone said that VT doesn't want to win a national title. It's just going to be a longer game than we'd like, and admittedly one that will have to be played post-Frank. Not saying he can't have another solid year or two, but the foundation that it takes to get to the biggest stage is many years in the making. I am loathe to quote Nick Saban, but in this case he's right - "it's a process."
It's a process.... for a newer coach not one that has been here for 20+ years. the past 5 years we've had a hard enough time making a bowl game.
I would agree he is trying to look at it from a different angle and we still have the ACC but looking at the ECU performance and even thinking we have a chance in the ACC isn't something that's real likely.
I would say that it's a process for any coach to build and/or maintain a championship-caliber program. Even Saban is having a hard time doing it now after all the success he's had (though his lowest recent season is still well above ours). Unless you can keep everything in place in terms of player quality, coach quality, facilities, infrastructure, and academic support, things can fall off.
agreed and when so called coach and coaching staff isn't pulling weight with conference title games, bowl wins and recruiting it might be time to look at other options..
we're 3 years into a decent overhaul of coaches and its almost like VT got worse but somehow we have one of the best rosters we've had in years.. its so confusing
GuitarMan you shushh with your logical dissections. You're simply making to much sense around here!
GuitarMan you shushh with your logical dissections. You're simply making to much sense around here!
EDIT: It was so sarcastic I accidentally posted it twice.
But you forgot to include what he said at the end:
"Like I said, if you got ambition to win a national championship or go to a really good bowl game, every one of those games are certainly important too. And hopefully we've learned something from playing those games."
That implies a NC wasn't really Frank's ambition. I'm tired of everyone trying to make sense of and cover for Frank, when we know exactly what he is saying and what he means. He's belittled these out of conference games and the big match ups on a consistent basis. And on the contrary, when has Frank ever come out and actually said anything ambitious? I've never heard him say we're looking to go to a national championship, or we need to beat OSU, or we need to show up for the big game- it's like he just doesn't care.
We can even go back to before the OSU game, where Frank was interviewed and talking about playing the reigning national champs, and he said something like "oh it's a good show for the players and the fans" but otherwise gave no expectations of winning or taking the game seriously, again belittling the match up and having the attitude that it's not a real game or a match up that needs to be won or taken seriously.
Frank's done this for years now...he's clearly OK with a program that's just over .5 every season, but the end result is that it's not where it was a few years ago and is in fact declining. When has Frank ever acknowledged publicly that the program isn't where it was, and he's working to get it better or that he expects to win more games? Never.
We have a coach that doesn't have or project a winning attitude, and if that's not the case, he's trying as hard as possible to make it seem that way to the media and the fans. My problem is that I suspect his apathetic attitude towards winning the big games or these "exhibitions" permeates through the locker room and the players, and that is why we're seeing some of these dropped games against inferior competition and all the penalties. Anyone who's ever played a team sport knows that if your coach isn't motivated or lighting a fire under your ass, you're probably not going to play well. I just don't think Beamer is bringing the right atmosphere and attitude the program needs right now to get out of this rut.
I didn't include what he said at the end because it was redundant. I don't know how it can be interpreted any other way. If you want to win the title, you have to win OOC and in conference. He says every game is important and he hopes we learned something [now that we've lost them]. It's perspective given our current situation. But this straw man argument of "our goal is to never win a title" is something I'll never understand, because no one's ever said that. That's all I'm arguing against. Frank hasn't been at his best the last few days in these comments, no question. But to hyperbolize and extrapolate it is just foolish to me.
I'm talking about big picture, not just this one comment that is in retrospect. It's not the first time Frank speaks in this way, belittling the bigger games..that they don't mean a whole lot (and inferring his focus is really just to win the ACC). I understand the logical progression, but coaches with winning attitudes have more fire to their words than this. Also, it's not just after games..go back to his interviews before the OSU game, where he pretty much likens the match-up to a "good show" but nothing more than that.
There's no other way to look at it other than Frank is saving face and lowering expectations...he's trying to set people's expectations. But there is a disconnect between what the fans expect and what Beamer expects. Regardless of whether or not the fan's expectations are rational (that's another debate), he doesn't project a winning attitude for the team.
You're taking from it what you want to hear. I remember him saying how important the Stanford game was and was blasted afterward for putting too much emphasis on one game. Frank has officially entered lose lose territory with the fan base.
I agree with this. We were out of Playoff contention with Braxton's spin move. Focusing to much on the OSU loss or the ECU loss takes away from the achievable goal of winning the ACC. You can't criticize him for not having a winning mentality and also criticize him for wanting to win something he can actually win.
on top of Brewer's broken collarbone.
The issue I have and remain to have beyond him making poorly worded comments is the willingness to accept losses and dismiss them publicly. I think people even outside the "business" understand that when you don't win the NC you want the next best, and so on down the line. The problem though is without holding everyone in the program, coaches and players alike, to the highest expectations then you will never attain anything of note. As empty as the trophy case was it signified that we wouldn't accept anything less than being on track to win the NC (whether that was actually the mentality or not is another issue). Of course it's a fools errand to expect it but you have to want it. Want it so ardently that you're not satisfied with anything less. So yes, outside of the NC, we have playoffs, then bowl game, then conference championship, etc on down the cascade but publicly stating that we expect losses and can look past them because we have the next best thing to achieve is the absolute wrong mentality in sports IMO. When we lose I want to see someone that is seething that we allowed it to happen, that shows his players that while losses can happen we should never have let it happen and won't accept letting it happen again, showing his coaches that he holds himself to MUCH loftier goals and therefore they should as well.
Is this a product of age? maybe. Call it fire, desire, whatever but Beamer is exhibiting an absolute lack of it at present with these comments both after the game and now. I'm disappointed. Badly disappointed. I want him to come out punchy. I want to see the old guy that teaches the young whipper snappers how this damn game is played. Not the old guy that understands the realities of the "business" and can let go of losses, and loftier goals, immediately after the game because he knows the next best thing is still on the table.
Not cool Frank. Not cool.
So you'd like him to dwell on his losses and spend all day going into excessive detail about how's/why we lost and what's going to change? The more time you spend thinking about losses, the harder it becomes to have a winning mindset. That's how you become UVA.
Beamer wasn't dismissing this weekend's loss to highlight his lack of desire or to say he never wants to win a championship. He did it to get the focus of his program off of ECU and onto the conference. He knows his team didn't play well. He knows they have a lot of work to do. Go watch the sounds of gameday video from the OSU game last year. What's his message pregame? What was his message to Greg Stroman this week? "If something bad happens, forget about it, go play the next one." They'll look at film and learn from the game and all that, but Frank knows his guys need to just forget about how poorly they played, move on, and go play the next one. Why everyone insists he's saying all these other things is something I will never understand.
you're missing the point
where did I say this? What I said is I want him to say something more astute than giving himself and players an excuse to dismiss the game.
Actually I have always found that if you don't recognize what's wrong, own up to it and demand it be changed then this is when things become harder to get better. that's true in sports, work and life IMO. Dismissing loses because there's a backup goal is precisely how you become UVA.
I didn't say his motivation to say these things was to highlight his lack of desire. I said IMO these comments call into question his desire. One that I have always taken for granted. I agree that he knows the team didn't play well and they have a lot of work to do. And shouldn't that be the message? That he's not taking a moment off and will work to fix things? I am not saying this isn't exactly what he intends to do. What I am saying is that what Frank is saying does NOT say this. What he is saying reads like he has a "oh well" mentality when it comes to losses because when you are in the "business" you know there are always other thing to focus on. Not the message he should be giving, not one that exemplifies the blue collar approach he built the program upon.
Simply forget it and move on because conference games are right there waiting for us to win. Why do you insist that this is a good message for a Head Coach to be giving to national media?
Again, I fully believe Beamer misspoke... both times. But what he is saying when misspeaking is having a larger negative effect on the program than the actual loss had. Without these gaffes the loss would have already been forgotten by all but Hokie beat writers and blogs, and ECU of course. Unfortunately he keeps saying the wrong things and for me, a very pro-Beamer supporter, I really don't like it. I prefer accountability and working hard to fix mistakes. If that's what you in fact intend to do then why not just say that to the media?
This is the key aspect of this entire discussion
I wouldn't agree that expecting to win a national championship THIS year was a fool's errant. There I said it and certainly not one FB should have dismissed so lightly.
That fact is starting the season, the numbers showed us to be favored in every game except anOSU and GT. A "respectable" loss to anOSU with our starting QB going down didn't knock us out of that possibility. All that was needed, albeit not an easy accomplishment, was to win the games in which we are favored and pull off a minor upset in Atlanta - hell had we beaten ECU and given GT'S performance to date, we would probably be favored in that game as well. We are then faced with needing a win in the ACCCG. Make no mistake, the ECU loss (a game the Hokies were favored to win by 10 and lost by 7) killed their National Championship aspirations for the year and the words "exhibition" and "preseason" should NEVER be used in the same sentence with a game of that magnitude - I mean NEVER - it was foolish and should require an a total and unadulterated apology from the HC - it's a disgrace to the Hokie nation and shows total disrepect to the opponent who won the game. IMO.
So I feel the anchor in our offense is Shane Beamer's RB carousel. We are never going to get another Kevin Jones if our RBs are getting only 7 carries a game
I agree totally. He is definitely setting the offense back a bit with this RB carousel. However, sometimes the O-line just doesn't open up holes (looks to me like ECU was one of those instances, however I just saw bits and portions of it), which makes it difficult to run the ball anyways.
It also seems to me like his dad's loyalty and "niceness" has rubbed off on him. I think loyalty is a great trait to have, but there comes a time when you HAVE to look at a guy and say "Hey, sorry man, but we're gonna have to go with the guy who is getting it done, I hate to do this to you. Keep working!" I don't think Shane has the guts to tell JCC or Trey this and have Travon be the #1...IMHO.
Shane, or someone, did that exact thing last year, if memory serves JCC started last year as the starter but lost the starting job to both Shai and Williams, and didn't get his starting job back until basically everyone else got injured... I don't understand the reluctance to do the same thing this year
I think Shane is trying to hard to spread these carries around. Then again, a large part of me wonders if Lefty is overthinking his personnel packages. He definitely likes to get everyone involved, utilize all of the available talent, but man, these guys need to figure it out.
So much of what is holding our RB's back is vision, hitting the right hole. They're capable, they've all done it, but they don't have any rhythm from play to play because they're barely on the field. If they are allowed to establish rhythm, that is when they can anticipate the holes better.
Zohn and Lefty have clearly decided that Ford and Phillips are the best WR's, they're in every snap. Sure the talent gap isn't as large at RB, but Shane and Lefty need to make up their minds. Pick two RB's + Sam.
I know that the team has a lot of other things to worry about, but who is going to be the punter next year? That's like the one position other than DB that we are solid at.
I....don't really care anymore what the Beamers have to say about the running back rotation.
They certainly know football better than I do by a wide, wide margin.
Do you think I'm blind? I see. ~ Gina
I have ears, Frank. I hear things. ~ Tony
Bullshit Shane. Offering that up as an excuse, playing from behind. I've heard coach speak and I've heard bullshit, I know which one this is.
I was more concerned about the shortcomings in the game than what was said afterward (I had no trouble understanding what he meant), and more concerned about how Frank came across in the media conference than what he said.
Our offense made some mistakes but the D was obliterated. That does NOT bode well for the rest of the season.
In terms of presentation, to me Frank looked and sounded defensive and perhaps even a little confused. He could have laughed off the comment from Saturday...I would have...but he didn't. Losing one's situational awareness is not a good sign of one's mental and perhaps physical state.
It doesn't seem to me like Frank even realized that his "exhibition" comment caused such a reaction. He is totally--and purposefully--out of touch with the fan base.
This coaching staff, mainly the beamers, seem lost and I really mean it when I say I wouldn't lose sleep if they got fired tomorrow. They seem like they try to backtrack everything they say, and come up with a lamer excuse of what they are doing. Their goals not where they should be and don't have the leadership coaches need because they can't take accountability.
I would have a hard time supporting an AD that fires Frank Beamer midseason. I'm generally against midseason firings anyway, but I would be furious if Frank was disrespected in that way.
Agreed. Especially since if the point is to have the best season possible, firing the coach won't help that.
I wouldn't be mad. In general, there's no accountability. Same crap, different game, every game.... "(insert team here) is a tough team, they can really get after you, they are a good football team."
Any other business that doesn't like the direction the company is going, they would can their leader, (Men's Warehouse for a recent example) whether its the first fiscal quarter or last. I appreciate everything CFB has done for this football program, but when your leader is blind to whats happening to this program and is showing that he lacks the leadership, more and more every year, its time for him to go. Will they fire him? Most likely never. They will most likely force him out or he voluntarily steps down before that.
All in all, I just wouldn't be opposed to a midseason firing. Not advocating it, but not opposed either
I think you guys need to elevate the conversation above firing our head coach for a 2-2 start. I feel like I'm reading talk radio caller transcripts on every post.
PAAAWWWWWWWL
hmm..really?
I like Shane, but the RB rotation is socialism. He's distributing their carries as evenly as possible because he wants to keep them all happy. The issue is that none of them can get into the groove of the game. I have a very real fear that when we get into ACC play our running game is going to become non-existent because the RBs aren't running confidently. He's going to continue rotating 3 and 4 backs into the game on each drive and they're not going to be productive. He'll spend the next off-seasons scratching his head wondering why he can't get the running backs into situations where they can benefit this offense. It's driving me nuts
Travon is the best RB but he is young. I think they are slow to acknowledge that a young back is the best back but have a feeling that they will soon. I don't think a few more carries would have overcome the karma working against us on Saturday.
I think Frank really came off wrong but was right in saying that a one-loss ACC team was pretty much not going to be in the playoffs and therefore was playing for a conference championship.
Still, he looks to have lost the fire and confidence that his position requires and I am hoping that he has the self-awareness that he has claimed in the past.
The reality is that this was a 8-10 win team without significant injuries (look at the advanced stats article from before the OSU game, numbers don't lie) and we have lost the most important player on each side of the ball (and have a few other less than 100% starters on defense). As a result, we are currently a 6-8 win team.
I am still taking my boys to our first game of the season on Saturday and my 5 year-old niece to her first ever game and we will enjoy it. I hope everyone else finds a way to do the same. I enjoy the civil portions of the debate but will have to tune it out at some point if it is the outcome of every loss and/or less than ideal comment from the coaching staff.
TE releases to the flat and fullback wheel routes, please.
I edited this terrible quote image and placed certain trophies among the moon and stars...
So if CFB alludes to saying that goal-wise at this point in time we aren't aiming for the NC then that explains why we keep landing amongst the crappiest of stars: the "participation medal" star..where "if you had fun, you won!"
It would be nice to know the conversations Whit and CFB had behind closed doors. Especially with laying out the 1 yr goal, 3 yr goal, 5 yr goal. Throwing aside coach speak, it'd be nice to know that by the 5th year following last year's mediocrity Whit and Beamer and Company say "We'll fully compete in full strength for the NC". And this needs to be said with the talent, fire, and determination that drove that *hate to say it* 2001 Miami team (i just vomited in my mouth) to win it all.
We want to sit as kings on the immortal National Championship throne!
If it works, we can get a good deal on shirts that say "we're back" in bright orange.
Lol! touche @hokiejeep thanks for the laugh.
Ouch. The "backness" sweepstakes used to be something we invented to make fun of the Florida schools with.
Not liking this Karma thing one bit.
Sooo..... You're upset that we're not yet meeting the Year 5 goal in Year 2 or 3?
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Obviously we don't have much chance at a NC right now, so why would that be a realistic goal, as you said, at this point in time?
Why shane beamer is our rb's coach is beyond me, tell me 1 good thing he has done with our rb's since billy hite left? Its the same ol same ol every yr with that guy. I just think its good comedy that shane is coaching our rb's when kevin jones is right there and if not him im sure they could go get a rb coach that actually played rb. Personally i will be happy when he is gone, he hasnt impressed me at all.
The notion that someone with no coaching experiance could walk into a P5 program and just start coaching a position is laughable as for only hiring someone who played a position to coach it, well there are plenty of coaches who didn't play that position or side of the ball or hell even play football at all.
Yea it is a shame Kevin Jones doesn't have coaching experience, I mean he took a lot of reps in college and he only played in the National Football League... I think he would do just fine... just sayin
So, basically what I read is Shane and Lefty are going to do jack-shit except the same thing with the backs and the "running game"? Fuck dammit. >facepalm< Somebody HAS to STOP them from doing this. We're coming up on our 5th game. How many fucking games should JCC and Edmunds be allowed to have to "get into a rhythm"? I say 2 (3 max). CFB should put his damn foot down and ride the hot hand (currently, McMillan). If not, then Whit should come down out of his office and FORCE them to utilize McMillan. At 5 games approach (and sitting at 2-2 .500) we AIN'T GOT TIME FOR THIS BS ROTATION SHANE WANTS TO EXPERIMENT WITH.
I agree with everything EXCEPT the last part. Whit should not be running the day-to-day decisions of the football team. Apparently UVA has an issue of an overbearing AD and its hurt their football program (and we don't want to be like UVA). If Whit can't trust the judgement of his head FB coach, then he needs to remove him (not saying he should, just saying IF).
Agreed with your last part, however, based on recent comments, still doesn't address who's going to force Shane to use McMillan.
Let us take a look back a few years ago. SB is in competition for the Richmond HC job. This is a move that every coach would want because it gives you a chance to show the world your leadership skills. I heard that he actually was the top guy for the job and then all of a sudden he is not even in the running. The rumor is/was, he was told not to take the job because it may hinder your chances at the VT HC job. Even if there is an ounce of truth to this, it explains a lot.
I have always said SB does not deserve the keys to this car because to me, he has not yet proven he can run a good back-field let alone an entire team.
how in the world would that have hurt his chances at the VT HC job?? It gives him HC experience. I don't think we should even look at anyone that has not been a successful HC or coordinator at a P5 school.
Who started this rumor? A 13 year old girl? Nothing about this rumor makes any sense. I give this statement about as much credibility as:
Mike London's game-managing ability
A politician
Wile E. Coyote
AAC Ref
Patriots Equipment room
Bond Movie Villain
Here's a picture of my favorite bond girl to make me feel better:
Leg for Dr. No.
That's Foreign FLICKS Mr. Connery
Nice opening, considering recent revelations.
This is why the effects of these bad calls linger a lot longer than the second it takes to throw the flag or the couple minutes to blow the review.
Is it bad that at this point I would rather Shane be the head coach than continue to coach the running backs?
Unless Travon is mouthing and slacking off every practice, he has earned the right to be the guy for a game. Give him the first quarter against Pitt. Let him do his best, if he lights up the world, keep him there and maybe just spell him the rest of the game. If at the end of the first quarter he is average or poor, then give JCC the second quarter, etc... Give a back more than 2 plays of the damn series.
Yes.
Very, very bad.
I wonder, what do you all think about how Shane Beamer has handled the backfield this year?
It's been a disaster. Nepotism only gets you so far..
I guess coaching at GT, Tenn, Miss St and SC were all just nepotism at work?
Well he hasn't proved himself to me anyway. Maybe I'm wrong, but at this point, I don't think any FBS school out there would hire Shane Beamer as running backs coach.
I get your point, but I don't think he coached RBs at any of those stops on his resume. Some coaches just aren't cut out for certain things. Look at Stinespring. Great TE coach and recruiter. Can't cut it as an OC. Maybe S.Beamer is great at some aspect of coaching. Maybe he's just not cut out for RB coach. If he is, I haven't seen it yet
GT- Grad Assistant QB's and WR's
Tenn- Grad Assistant
Miss ST- Cornerbacks and Special Teams
SC- Linebackers and Special Teams
VT- Running Backs
Lets take a peek at other RB coaches and their past coaches experiences.
Miami- Tim Harris HC at Booker T Washington 99-10 in 8 years. Florida HS coach of the year 2012 and 2013
Maryland- Terry Richardson Running Backs Coach for Jacksonville Jaguars 13-14, U of Miami 11-12, UConn 99-10
UVA- Chip Beatty 2007 - Northern Illinois Running Backs, 2008-10 - West Virginia Running Backs/Slot Receivers, 2011 - Vanderbilt Wide Receivers, 2012 - Illinois Co-Offensive Coordinator/Quarterbacks
I think the main issue is Shane had what 2 real years of coaching and all of a sudden is good enough to be VT's Running Backs coach? Obviously there are important factors as to who was available at the time of hire and other things but looking at his resume it doesn't really fit IMO.
If Shane was a brought in as a recruiting coordinator and Special Teams coach people wouldn't have an issue... the guy can recruit and it shows with his stints at South Carolina and Miss ST. \
I really hope he can turn this around and get us going again because we have talent.. just need to narrow it down and use it properly.
Me watching the game and listening to these coaches comments.....
Every year, for as long as I can remember, before the season began, we always knew who our running back was going to be. Lee Suggs, Kevin Jones, Darren Evans, Ryan Williams, David Wilson, Cedric Humes, the list goes on and on. That all changed in 2011 when Shane Beamer took over as running backs coach. Go figure. Besides coaching, it is the responsibility of the position coach to determine who is best to start in that position, and he better be right. That's what he's paid for. Frank Beamer said things were going to be different this year, but unfortunately, it's just more of the same. Beating ECU would have been different, but instead we lost again. It's time for real change.
I don't know about you, but I felt pretty confident going into 2011 that David Wilson was the clear-cut starter.
Correct. Shane just got the hand off from Billy Hite and it was all down hill from there.
He also said that last year, and I'm pretty sure he said it in 2013. Once again, the problem is well documented among the coaches. But the solution is not forthcoming.
How many of us understand economics? The issue here to me, is clearly the same as the issue with socialism. It's a race to the bottom. If you don't want to win every game, if you won't both accept responsibility for the performances and never accept those performances, you're racing to the bottom. There is no treading water, it's sink or swim. Frank doesn't want to swim anymore. That lack of work ethic, because that is what we are seeing, has permeated the program. We need drive...we need pride...we need arrogance...we need motivation...we need someone else...
It's JC Coleman's time. If you forget just look at his nice watch, it'll remind you.
Shane did make a (singular) valid point. When Tech goes uptempo he can't sub out the running back in the game. For example, If Tech wants to get Rogers just a couple of touches, but after the first carry Loeffler goes uptempo, he might get a bunch more carries than intended. However, that could be corrected but playing just two backs in the first place.
We seem to have pretty good success moving the ball (pass and especially rushing) when we go uptempo and can't sub backs. Coincidence? I think not.
I thought the same thing...it is NOT a bad thing that Shane can't play the shell game when we go up-tempo.
Secretly Loeffler knows that Shane sucks at his RB shuffle and he goes uptempo just so he can't eff up the progress. But Loeffler can't get rid of Shane because.... well you know... *Conspiracy*
VT Family. /s
Hypothetical -
The Hokies have just beaten ECU to go 4-0. During the post-game interview, Andy Bitter asks Beamer his sentiments on the season thus far, and Beamer responds with, " Well, these first four games are really just pre-season games. Winning the conference is what matters, and that's what we going to go get ready for this week."
Is Hokie Nation taking notice and sharpening pitchforks and lighting torches?
Hard to guess at. But I would say that the statement would get shrugged off as "Beamer being Beamer" especially if we had beaten then #1 OSU.
After the OSU game last year he implied something similar when he said that what matters is how we build off of the win.
I don't see how that is similar at all
Paraphrasing here, but I swear these are almost exact quotes:
"Coach, what does this win mean for your program?"
"It doesn't mean much if we don't prepare well for East Carolina next week."
He literally said that one of the biggest wins in school history didn't mean much without building off of it. So, irrespective of previous outcome, Beamer is consistently focusing on what's next. It's almost the same thing with this week's ECU quote. We lost, but what is it that's coming up? That's what matters.
I should have been more clear.
Saying: "It doesn't mean much if we don't prepare well for East Carolina next week."
Is the right thing to say.
Saying: "They're exhibition games, they're preseason games. Now it's on to conference games. Now it's down to being really important"
Is the wrong thing to say, and not similar to the first.
The first quote he is saying every game is important, and even though this is arguably the biggest win in our program's history we need to focus on the next game because it is equally important.
Whereas the second quote is saying that losing that game can be dismissed because it's an exhibition/preseason game and of less importance that games in conference.
Very different.
I explained my reasoning upthread, so I won't repeat myself. I think it's a poor use of wording, yes, but I think he's still saying the same thing. Beamer's personal theme is always "never too high, never too low." Put out of your mind what's in the past and stay focused on the future. Did he fumble it on Saturday? Yep. Now let's see if he recovers.
I've always maintained that he misspoke as well. We agree that we both believe what he meant is that they are the same.
However, and unfortunately, what he actually said is not the same.
I've maintained that this is essentially where I am disappointed by it, because he was feeding the BS line that playing ECU was somehow beneficial to us before game, and then dismissed them as less important after game. It's a gaffe. In fact, they both are. I get it. yet, with the opportunity to set the record straight he doubled down. A third gaffe.
me no likey.
And as was pointed out by others, this along with the penalties gaffe coming to light in the national media has not painted a great picture of VT this year. Like the coaches are in some sort of fog and just not on top of it.
again, me no likey. I expect more from them.
I think there would be pitchforks, but it would be more the fans of the other teams, who just got insulted.
I can't think of any scenario where saying that in the way he did doesn't get some people upset.
Does anybody really think shane has a shot at the hc job when it opens? I don't see it, didn't whit say the next hc had to have so many yrs of head coaching experience? Pretty sure he did and if so he is all ready eliminated, besides I think hokienation would blow up if he got the job esp over bud foster who has been here forever.
only in one very unlikely scenario: we make a BCS game this year and next and Shane carries over that momentum. He is probably higher on Whits list than Bud, so in that case, he would be the status quo choice.
But we are likely to need a HC this year or next where momentum will need to be changed, not maintained.
With the way the defense has played this year, both Shane and Bud might be gone at the end of the year.
Oh Cmon, Bud doesn't get a down year?
That was the doom and gloom me, I am putting on my optimist hat again. Bud is going to figure out mobile quarterbacks before Pitt, Duke, NC State and GT run the ball down our throats.
Bud will only be gone if he wants to be gone. My expectation is that Beamer is ushered out this year, we hire a new offensive-minded HC who talks Foster into staying and all the offensive coaches are gone. Shane, especially, won't be on the next HC's staff for obvious reasons.
I always hope that Shane gets a HC gig somewhere every offseason. That would be a good career trajectory for him at this point. Like his father, time to go to a small school and run your own program. I think he has great promise as a HC down the road, since being a HC has nothing to do with RB rotations (which I firmly believe is about 50% on Loeffler's packages).
y'know, I was thinking about this earlier and I had this realization that you may be right indirectly. I wonder if in game planning Loeffler hands each position group's coach a set of play packages and it's then up to the position coaches to figure out which of their pieces fit each package. It's entirely possible that Shane gets the RB package without any direction form Scot regarding who plays when/where and Shane decides how to split the players up based on play call. So ultimately, Loeffler is the one calling the plays but whichever play is called dictates which RB goes in based on how the workload was assigned by Shane.
I've been on the fence a little bit about who to point the finger at for the RB rotation between Shane and Scot, but I'm starting to convince myself that it's more on Shane's shoulders than anyone elses. If Scot were the main culprit wouldn't it make sense that the pattern would carry over into other position groups? How come the RB rotation is the only one that fans have noticed and have taken issue with? How come we're not seeing the same at WR or TE? There are extremely rare occurrences of changes on the OL and QB. If the rotation were up to Scot, I'd have to believe we'd see more of Cline at TE and a whole heck of a lot more rotation at WR. Scot has even said that he doesn't like playing the same 2 guys all game long but he hasn't strayed from doing that. I think that's because of Burden more than anything. So, theoretically, the RB rotation falls squarely on Shane.
I will be re watching the Purdue game to see exactly whose in at RB and what happens when said RB is in. I think maybe understanding the roles a bit more and seeing how many snaps a back gets will also clarify things.
Is JC really brought in for 2 snaps then taken out and in comes trey?
I already have a huge spreadsheet and am trying to compile the Purdue results along with the upcoming Pitt results to see if we can see a scheme.match in the gameplans/RB usage..
early tidbit from Purdue game.. McMiliian was used specifically as a speed sweep/option decoy. Trey's 1st snap which also resulted a carry was a run from our 1/2 yardline for a gain of 0. He was extremely lucky to get the ball out of the endzone.
Comparing the RB's to the WR's, it's shockingly clear that there isn't a 3rd or 4th WR to put in the game. Maybe Phillips and Ford are also that good.
At RB, I think it is a lot of factors. Off the top of my head:
1. Shane pandering to his guys, trying to be "fair"
2. None of our RB's separating themselves from the pack
3. Limitations of all of our RB's, none are every down backs
4. Specific packages Loeffler wants for specific playcalls
5. Lack of clarity to the public on the nuances of the position. This one is the most difficult for me to describe, but like GT has A backs and B backs, it seems we have traditional tailbacks (Trey) and jet sweep backs (McMillian, Newsome). Trey and McMillian don't run many of the same plays. I suspect that McMillian is just to green to the position, it seems they have limited packages for him every week....but those packages seem to be growing.
My guess is that Shane panders to his guys, hasn't coached them up enough to be well rounded and that we just don't have that good of RB's. I also think that Loeffler is very package specific and likes guys in to run specific plays. He's the Substitution Czar. And, finally, I don't think it is that big of a damn deal. Our rushing sucked last week, but that's not why we lost the game. The offense is exceeding expectations and there is every real possibility that Shane is squeezing every last ounce of talent out of the inanimate objects he has to work with. What if Shane's rotation is actually working? Maybe it could be a lot worse.
you bring up a ton of points.. Shane being fair is 100% the case especially with his recent comments of apologizing. How do we know McMillian can't be that back, he honestly hasn't been given the opportunity.
3&4 are hand in hand..
"hasn't coached them up enough " could also be very true especially with his lack of RB coaching experience before VT.. was brought up yesterday.
I just don't get how other teams can get a True Freshman to come in learn a playbook and excel so quickly but we can't get 1 back in 4 years to learn our offense and become a 3 down back? I could pull plenty of examples
and an equally real possibility that he isn't
Oh yeah, I'm not defending him. But I'm not defending the players either. I haven't seen any natural tackle breaking or pull away'ability in these backs.
Again, maybe its McMillian. He's basically our last choice for a gamebreaker because we know its not Trey or JCC and we have no idea if we will ever see Shai or Marshawn at their full abilities again.
It depends on what you mean by "a shot." I don't think it's likely that Shane is named HC, but there's a big difference between "not likely" and "doesn't have a shot."
Assuming CFB retires in the next 2-3 years I expect he will support Shane as his successor. But it won't be Frank's decision. I'm sure he will have some influence, but I don't know how much. (Obviously if Frank is fired, Shane has almost no chance of being named his successor, but I don't think there's a realistic chance of Frank being fired.)
Frank won't be fired but a 6-6 season and I could see Whit & Frank mutually agreeing that he steps down..
I'm linking an article that was posted after the bowl game last year. It talks about needing/agreeing on an uptick in recruiting and getting back to winning championships. Right now our recruiting class is so so, and an ACC championship is still there but outlook is also so so.
Whit & Frank Chat
I know both Whit and Frank agreed that Frank can go out on his own terms, but when someone is paid the kind of salary he gets paid, several years of mediocrity tells everyone what the timing is.
yup. Frank knows, hes always said the day he finds himself as no benefit to VT Football is the day he will call it a career.
They ALL say that.
The problem is that it's very difficult to actually possess the objectiveness to do it.
0% chance Shane is the next head coach.
What are the odds Shane Beamer is still on the staff when the new HC starts spring practice?
roughly the same odds as Shane has at being the new Head Hokie
Imagine if Shane's last name were Stinespring rather than Beamer. Would we even be having this ridiculous conversation right now? Would he even be our RB coach right now? No offense to Shane but if you were to ask Shane himself if he is ready to be a head coach, I bet his answer would be no. His recruiting and coaching results so far have been lacking.