Hokies Must Better Focus Distribution of Rushing Attempts

By: Joe Lanza @thekeyplay

PUBLISHER

on October 9, 2015, 7:13 AM | 210 comments

[Mark Umansky]

There's been plenty of angst, unhappiness and despair with how Virginia Tech has divided up its touches on the ground in 2015. And that's for good reason too. Advanced rating system S&P+ ranks the Hokies No. 86 nationally in rushing. By a more traditional metric, Tech falls T-76th nationally in yards per game with 166.40 yards. Those rankings are not indicative of an offense that hangs its hat on running the football—a goal of Beamer Co.

Hokie Nation has bemoaned Tech's running back rotation more and more each season since 2011; the last year All-American tailback David Wilson suited up in maroon and orange. Wilson was fed the rock 49.15% of the time in 2011 (290 of 590 team attempts) for 1,709 yards. The rest of Tech's backs were malnourished; Josh Oglesby had the next most touches (97, 16.44%).

A healthy tailback on this year's roster has yes to distinguish himself like the rabbit-chasing, backflipping, Chick-fil-A on Sundays eating Wilson. Whether that's because of lack of talent, or opportunity is another issue.

Although, running backs coach Shane Beamer recently touted his group of tailbacks.

"We've got a highly competitive room," Beamer said in September. "We talk about our defensive line on this team and that's a good group, but I really like the group that we have in our room from a depth standpoint and the amount of talent that we have in that room. It's a really, really good group."

In 2011 Wilson averaged 5.72 yards per carry when his long gain of 57 yards is removed from the equation. This season redshirt freshman Travon McMillian is averaging 5.16 yards an attempt when his season high rush of 63 isn't considered. Yet, he is just third-most in tailback attempts (32) behind J.C. Coleman (37 ATT, 3.2 YPC) and Trey Edmunds (36 ATT, 4.1 YPC).

Furthermore, McMillian is averaging 7.1 highlight yards per opportunity*. Edmunds and Coleman are averaging 6.0 and 1.4, respectively. McMillian also boasts a 50% opportunity rate*, the highest among Tech's tailbacks. Edmunds' opportunity rate is 27.8%, and Coleman's is 32.4%.

"I think we want to keep it balanced," Shane Beamer said during Tech's press conference on 9/8/15. "It's a long year. It's a physical position. Those guys take a pounding."

Through 5 games, Beamer's hit his goal and almost evenly distributed the load among his top three tailbacks. However, it's fair to question the strategy of giving the most productive tailback third most carries.

"You can't play four, you can't play six regularly and be any good," Shane said prior to the 2014 season.

When fullback Sam Rogers' attempts (10) and quarterback Brenden Motley's carries (62) are considered along with Coleman, Edmunds and McMillian's involvement in the run game, five players are sharing one ball.

From a running backs' perspective, that's not an optimal way to get into a flow.

"He (the running back) has to be in there to really feel it, feel what the defense is bringing at him, feel the different pressures, the different zone blitzes and things like that," Trey Edmunds said during Tech's press conference on 9/8/15. "It's just a matter of how you're feeling in the game like I said. Once you get a feel for what the defense is throwing at you, I feel, as a running back, you're able to see things better, see things differently. That's when those big runs occur and when the big things start to become the little things and a lot of success happens."

J.C. Coleman echoed a similar, more succinct sentiment in October 2014.

"Being a running back is all about rhythm," Coleman said.

In order to better visualize the rhythm, or lack thereof, I logged every Virginia Tech rush play this season and charted it below. The play-by-play information is via ESPN.com**. The y-axis is yards gained or lost on a play. The x-axis is the carry number for each game and which Hokie ran the ball (color coded). The quarterbacks are included because they are eating a slice of the pie too (pizza, not dessert). Sacks and touchdowns are noted in the table.

Carry No.	Situation	Player Name	Rush Yards	Sack
1	2nd and 10 at VT 25	J.C. Coleman	3
2	3rd and 7 at VT 28	Michael Brewer	-4	Yes
3	1st and 10 at VT 18	J.C. Coleman	5
4	2nd and 5 at VT 23	J.C. Coleman	4
5	3rd and 1 at VT 27	J.C. Coleman	3
6	1st and 10 at VT 30	Michael Brewer	-5	Yes
7	2nd and 15 at VT 25	Michael Brewer	6
8	1st and 10 at VT 48	Sam Rogers	16
9	1st and 10 at OSU 36	Sam Rogers	3
10	1st and 10 at VT 26	Trey Edmunds	7
11	2nd and 3 at VT 33	Trey Edmunds	-4
12	1st and 20 at VT 27	Brenden Motley	7
13	2nd and 13 at VT 34	Travon McMillian	15
14	1st and 10 at VT 44	Brenden Motley	0
15	2nd and 10 at VT 44	Greg Stroman	-4
16	1st and 10 at OSU 35	J.C. Coleman	1
17	2nd and 9 at OSU 34	J.C. Coleman	2
18	1st and 10 at VT 12	J.C. Coleman	9
19	2nd and 1 at VT 21	J.C. Coleman	0
20	3rd and 1 at VT 21	Michael Brewer	3
21	1st and 10 at VT 24	Sam Rogers	4
22	1st and 0 at OSU 2	Trey Edmunds	1
23	2nd and 0 at OSU 1	Trey Edmunds	0
24	2nd and 1 at VT 34	Trey Edmunds	3
25	2nd and 2 at VT 45	Trey Edmunds	6
26	1st and 10 at OSU 49	Trey Edmunds	7
27	2nd and 3 at OSU 42	Trey Edmunds	-1
28	2nd and 10 at OSU 41	J.C. Coleman	6
29	3rd and 4 at OSU 35	Brenden Motley	-7	Yes
30	2nd and 6 at VT 29	J.C. Coleman	5
31	3rd and 1 at VT 34	J.C. Coleman	3
32	1st and 10 at OSU 48	J.C. Coleman	2
33	1st and 10 at VT 16	Trey Edmunds	4
34	2nd and 6 at VT 20	Trey Edmunds	3
35	3rd and 3 at VT 23	Brenden Motley	7
36	1st and 10 at VT 30	Travon McMillian	-1
37	2nd and 7 at VT 29	Brenden Motley	2
38	1st and 10 at VT 17	Brenden Motley	14
39	2nd and 10 at VT 31	Trey Edmunds	-3
40	3rd and 13 at VT 28	Brenden Motley	-6	Yes
41	1st and 10 at OSU 29	Travon McMillian	3
42	2nd and 7 at OSU 26	Travon McMillian	2
43	3rd and 5 at OSU 24	Travon McMillian	6
44	1st and 10 at OSU 18	Travon McMillian	1

Carry No.	Situation	Player Name	Rush Yards	Touchdown
1	2nd and 10 at VT 27	Brenden Motley	17
2	1st and 10 at VT 44	J.C. Coleman	5
3	2nd and 5 at VT 49	J.C. Coleman	2
4	1st and 10 at VT 37	Trey Edmunds	7
5	2nd and 3 at VT 44	Trey Edmunds	2
6	3rd and 1 at VT 46	Trey Edmunds	0
7	1st and 10 at FUR 46	J.C. Coleman	8
8	1st and 10 at VT 12	Trey Edmunds	7
9	2nd and 3 at VT 19	Trey Edmunds	4
10	1st and 10 at FUR 31	Travon McMillian	1
11	3rd and 9 at FUR 30	Brenden Motley	7
12	4th and 2 at FUR 23	Trey Edmunds	19
13	1st and 0 at FUR 4	Brenden Motley	4	Yes
14	2nd and 10 at VT 40	Dwayne Lawson	5
15	1st and 10 at FUR 45	Travon McMillian	10
16	1st and 15 at FUR 40	Dwayne Lawson	0
17	3rd and 4 at FUR 29	Trey Edmunds	1
18	1st and 10 at VT 24	Travon McMillian	63
19	2nd and 8 at FUR 11	Brenden Motley	10
20	1st and Goal at FUR 1	Trey Edmunds	0
21	2nd and 1 at VT 33	Travon McMillian	6
22	1st and 10 at FUR 47	Isaiah Ford	7
23	1st and 0 at FUR 1	Trey Edmunds	1	Yes
24	1st and 10 at VT 33	Travon McMillian	9
25	2nd and 1 at VT 42	Dwayne Lawson	10
26	1st and 10 at FUR 17	Dwayne Lawson	10
27	1st and 10 at VT 19	Dwayne Lawson	6
28	2nd and 4 at VT 25	Chris Durkin	3
29	3rd and 1 at VT 28	Chris Durkin	6
30	2nd and 3 at FUR 46	Dwayne Lawson	4
31	1st and 10 at FUR 42	Shai McKenzie	11
32	1st and 9 at FUR 41	Dwayne Lawson	6
33	2nd and 3 at FUR 35	Travon McMillian	9
34	1st and 10 at FUR 26	Chris Durkin	7
35	2nd and 3 at FUR 19	Chris Durkin	9
36	2nd and Goal at FUR 10	Dwayne Lawson	6
37	3rd and 3 at FUR 4	Dwayne Lawson	4	Yes
38	1st and 10 at VT 49	Shai McKenzie	6
39	2nd and 4 at FUR 45	Shai McKenzie	2
40	3rd and 2 at FUR 43	Shai McKenzie	0
41	4th and 2 at FUR 43	Shai McKenzie	5

Carry No.	Situation	Player Name	Rush Yards	Touchdown	Sack
1	1st and 10 at VT 34	Travon McMillian	6
2	1st and 10 at PUR 20	J.C. Coleman	3
3	2nd and 7 at PUR 17	Brenden Motley	0
4	1st and 10 at PUR 46	Travon McMillian	-4
5	2nd and 14 at 50	Brenden Motley	3
6	3rd and 11 at PUR 47	Brenden Motley	-4
7	1st and 10 at VT 2	Trey Edmunds	-1
8	1st and 10 at VT 16	Brenden Motley	20
9	1st and Goal at PUR 3	Trey Edmunds	1
10	1st and 10 at VT 25	J.C. Coleman	9
11	2nd and 1 at VT 34	J.C. Coleman	10
12	1st and 25 at VT 29	Brenden Motley	9
13	2nd and 16 at VT 38	Travon McMillian	10
14	1st and 10 at PUR 39	Travon McMillian	7
15	2nd and 3 at PUR 32	J.C. Coleman	6
16	2nd and 10 at PUR 26	Brenden Motley	6
17	1st and 10 at VT 25	Brenden Motley	-1
18	3rd and 11 at VT 24	Trey Edmunds	16
19	1st and 10 at VT 40	Trey Edmunds	35
20	1st and 10 at PUR 25	J.C. Coleman	2
21	1st and 0 at PUR 5	Brenden Motley	5	Yes
22	1st and 15 at PUR 23	J.C. Coleman	3
23	3rd and 12 at PUR 20	Brenden Motley	-5		Yes
24	1st and 10 at VT 35	Brenden Motley	1
25	2nd and 9 at VT 36	Sam Rogers	10
26	1st and 10 at VT 46	Brenden Motley	5
27	2nd and 5 at PUR 49	Brenden Motley	-2
28	1st and 10 at PUR 42	Trey Edmunds	3
29	2nd and 7 at PUR 39	Trey Edmunds	2
30	1st and 10 at PUR 25	Trey Edmunds	9
31	2nd and 1 at PUR 16	Trey Edmunds	4
32	1st and 10 at PUR 12	Brenden Motley	-2
33	1st and 0 at PUR 1	J.C. Coleman	1	Yes
34	1st and 15 at VT 6	J.C. Coleman	1
35	2nd and 14 at VT 7	J.C. Coleman	5
36	3rd and 9 at VT 12	J.C. Coleman	6
37	1st and 10 at PUR 32	Trey Edmunds	3
38	2nd and 7 at PUR 29	Travon McMillian	0
39	1st and 10 at PUR 38	Dwayne Lawson	5
40	2nd and 10 at PUR 38	Dwayne Lawson	0
41	3rd and 10 at PUR 38	Dwayne Lawson	-2
42	1st and 10 at PUR 35	Shai McKenzie	3
43	2nd and 7 at PUR 32	Shai McKenzie	3
44	3rd and 4 at PUR 29	Dwayne Lawson	-3
45	1st and 10 at PUR 47	Travon McMillian	14
46	1st and 10 at PUR 33	Travon McMillian	17
47	1st and 10 at PUR 16	Travon McMillian	3
48	2nd and 7 at PUR 13	Travon McMillian	2
49	3rd and 1 at PUR 7	Brenden Motley	2
50	1st and Goal at PUR 5	Shai McKenzie	-1
51	2nd and Goal at PUR 6	Shai McKenzie	3
52	1st and 10 at PUR 30	Shai McKenzie	5
53	2nd and 5 at PUR 25	Shai McKenzie	4
54	3rd and 1 at PUR 21	Shai McKenzie	7
55	1st and 10 at PUR 14	Shai McKenzie	2

Carry No.	Situation	Player Name	Rush Yards	Touchdown	Sack
1	1st and 10 at ECU 31	J.C. Coleman	2
2	1st and 10 at ECU 16	J.C. Coleman	1
3	2nd and 9 at ECU 15	Brenden Motley	6
4	1st and 0 at ECU 1	Trey Edmunds	1	Yes
5	1st and 10 at ECU 19	Brenden Motley	9
6	3rd and 4 at ECU 13	Brenden Motley	3
7	4th and 1 at ECU 10	Brenden Motley	2
8	1st and Goal at ECU 8	J.C. Coleman	1
9	2nd and 10 at VT 18	Trey Edmunds	3
10	1st and 10 at VT 25	J.C. Coleman	2
11	2nd and 8 at VT 27	J.C. Coleman	3
12	3rd and 5 at VT 30	Brenden Motley	11
13	1st and 10 at VT 41	Trey Edmunds	-1
14	1st and 10 at VT 35	Brenden Motley	7
15	2nd and 3 at VT 42	Brenden Motley	5
16	1st and 10 at VT 47	Travon McMillian	7
17	2nd and 3 at ECU 46	Brenden Motley	6
18	1st and 10 at ECU 40	Brenden Motley	2
19	1st and 10 at ECU 24	J.C. Coleman	2
20	1st and 10 at VT 26	Brenden Motley	-1
21	2nd and 11 at VT 25	Brenden Motley	8
22	3rd and 3 at VT 33	Dwayne Lawson	4
23	1st and 20 at VT 27	Brenden Motley	3
24	1st and 10 at VT 25	J.C. Coleman	2
25	1st and 10 at VT 25	Travon McMillian	7
26	2nd and 3 at VT 32	Travon McMillian	1
27	3rd and 2 at VT 33	Trey Edmunds	5
28	1st and 10 at ECU 30	Isaiah Ford	10
29	1st and 10 at ECU 20	Sam Rogers	4
30	2nd and 6 at ECU 16	Sam Rogers	1
31	1st and 0 at ECU 2	Sam Rogers	2	Yes
32	1st and 10 at VT 40	Brenden Motley	8
33	2nd and 2 at VT 48	Sam Rogers	1
34	3rd and 1 at VT 49	Trey Edmunds	0
35	2nd and 10 at ECU 25	Brenden Motley	4
36	1st and 10 at VT 5	Brenden Motley	8
37	2nd and 10 at VT 19	Travon McMillian	14
38	2nd and 10 at VT 33	Brenden Motley	2
39	1st and 0 at ECU 5	Brenden Motley	5	Yes
40	1st and 10 at VT 21	Travon McMillian	1
41	1st and 10 at VT 32	Brenden Motley	3
42	2nd and 7 at VT 35	Brenden Motley	-6		Yes

Carry No.	Situation	Player Name	Rush Yards	Sack
1	1st and 10 at VT 25	J.C. Coleman	0
2	2nd and 10 at VT 25	Travon McMillian	3
3	1st and 10 at VT 25	J.C. Coleman	5
4	1st and 10 at VT 36	J.C. Coleman	-2
5	2nd and 7 at VT 39	Brenden Motley	3
6	3rd and 4 at VT 42	Brenden Motley	0
7	1st and 10 at VT 17	Trey Edmunds	3
8	2nd and 2 at VT 25	Brenden Motley	3
9	3rd and 2 at VT 36	Brenden Motley	3
10	1st and 10 at PITT 46	Brenden Motley	-9	Yes
11	2nd and 19 at VT 45	Brenden Motley	22
12	1st and 10 at PITT 33	Brenden Motley	-7	Yes
13	1st and 10 at PITT 12	Sam Rogers	1
14	1st and 10 at VT 28	J.C. Coleman	-2
15	3rd and 9 at VT 29	Brenden Motley	-9	Yes
16	1st and 10 at VT 23	Travon McMillian	4
17	1st and 10 at VT 20	TEAM	-1
18	1st and 10 at VT 25	J.C. Coleman	2
19	2nd and 8 at VT 27	Travon McMillian	15
20	2nd and 10 at VT 42	Travon McMillian	1
21	3rd and 9 at VT 43	Brenden Motley	6
22	1st and 10 at PITT 23	Brenden Motley	-7	Yes
23	3rd and 17 at PITT 30	Brenden Motley	4
24	1st and 10 at VT 20	Trey Edmunds	2
25	2nd and 8 at VT 22	Brenden Motley	1
26	1st and 10 at VT 46	Travon McMillian	-3
27	2nd and 13 at VT 43	Brenden Motley	1
28	1st and 10 at PITT 29	Travon McMillian	-6
29	2nd and 16 at PITT 35	Brenden Motley	0
30	2nd and 10 at VT 25	Sam Rogers	1
31	3rd and 9 at VT 26	Brenden Motley	-10	Yes
32	1st and 10 at VT 38	Brenden Motley	-8	Yes
33	2nd and 18 at VT 30	Brenden Motley	-7	Yes

There are only a handful of times in non-garbage time situations when a single running back saw a significant stretch of carries. That yields the total distribution through the first five games of 2015 below.

North Carolina State's defense has allowed just 80.2 yards per game on the ground this season. That ranks No. 6 overall nationally. S&P+ agrees the Wolfpack has played terrific run defense thus far in 2015, and it ranks N.C. State No. 11 in the country.

Friday night would be the right time for Tech to cut its running back rotation down, and excel moving the ball on the ground.

"I think we've sat down and talked about who we need touching the ball," Frank Beamer said during Monday's press conference. "I'm not gonna get into that, but there's always so many touches in a game and percentage-wise you better have the right people touching the ball."

Although, this is a familiar tune, sung by Beamer as recently as preseason camp.

"I think we've got to limit ourselves," Beamer said this past August. "Shane (Beamer) learned from that, I certainly learned from that. Just trying to play too many and you've got to get in there and get settled and get into a rhythm and we never allowed that to happen, so we're aware of what needs to take place."

Statistically, McMillian is Tech's most productive option. He passes the eye test and Frank Beamer has gushed over him since his first camp.

"The guy's got speed, real speed," Beamer said in August 2014. "You noticed him. He's going to come along. He's going to be a real speed guy in our backfield."

McMillian or otherwise, both coaches and players are in agreement that Tech's rushing attack needs to distribute the majority of touches to fewer players.

*These terms are defined on Football Study Hall's advanced statistics glossary.

**ESPN's dataset was the easiest to programmatically obtain. Please note, there were a couple of minor inconsistencies in the Virginia Tech–Purdue game. The obvious one is ESPN did not count Purdue's strip-sack-score touchdown as a sack against Motley.

Tags:

2015 Football Season

North Carolina State

Statistics

Section:

Virginia Tech Football

Comments

Jander75 | 10 years 9 months #

Excellent Analysis and Write up! Hopefully we get a heavy dose of McMillian pounding the rock tonight and no more $*(@$&(#@*&$ jet sweeps...

coach mcguirk | 10 years 9 months #

Seems like ancient history when Newsome ran the jet sweeps. He killed it.

Hokie 681 | 10 years 9 months #

This should be in Shane's inbox this morning!

Scottyb | 10 years 9 months #

Great article and the stats show that the running back coach says one thing but is like a kid with too many toys and can't decide which one to play with. Now, they are talking the right game, but let's see if it transfers to the game tonight.

vtcivengr | 10 years 9 months #

Somebody pulled up stats for JC in his last few games last season when he was the work horse and showed that his best carries were early in the game, not later after the mythical rhythm was established.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

You can get in to a rhythm early in a game if you are the only back getting carries.

Rocco



| 10 years 9 months # ^

If you're averaging 6 yards/carry in your first 5 carries, you'll move the chains and get more carries. That's what Coleman did last year.

Joe Lanza

PUBLISHER



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Coleman's diminutive size doesn't do him any favors as a grinder of a game wears on. Also, against Cincinnati he broke off runs of 9, 26, 9, 7 and 29 yards in the second half.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I would argue that he was also the only back getting carries during game prep. That has to do wonders for his confidence and comfort with the gameplan. As it is right now, I have to assume that all 4 backs are splitting reps during practice so none of them are going to have the level of confidence or comfort that Coleman enjoyed at the end of last season.

DBU | 10 years 9 months # ^

A million times this!

play.hokies | 10 years 9 months # ^

Don't worry. He'll get the first carry of the game. (Actually, this week I'm expecting a bomb down the right sideline.)

LinkF1



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I think that it is also telling that according to these stats JCC hasn't had a carry over 10 yards all season. If he had the explosiveness needed for the position you would hope he would break a long run just by chance at this point in the season.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

You would hope the offensive line would open a decent hole by chance at this point.

HokieAlum6144



| 10 years 9 months # ^

They have, the problem being JCC runs between the line and the end not in the hole.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

Sometime he does and sometimes there is no hole to run through. Its disappointing to say the least.

LinkF1



| 10 years 9 months # ^

The graphs above show 17 long (10+ yards) runs by runners on the season, we have seen video evidence of the decent holes here on TKP.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

The majority of those runs are outside of the tackle box

Rocco



| 10 years 9 months # ^

That was me.

Last four games, carries 1-10 of a game: 6.275 yards/game
Last four games, carries 11-25 of a game: 5.34 yards/game

Also I believe that it's never been proven that a RB gets better with more carries. I'll keep banging this drum, but Coleman's hot stretch last year had less to do with "getting into a groove" and more to do with "3 crappy run defenses and UVA".

Choppin wood by the JUGS | 10 years 9 months # ^

I think it was a combo of 3 things.. not great run defenses, huge uptick in carries and jc was benched early in year so he had a chip on his shoulder.

would he have gotten that many carries if we had 2 other healthy rb's, who knows but based of this years stats no way.

Rocco



| 10 years 9 months # ^

You're probably right. The problem is two fold:

1) When you have talented players, you have to find ways to get them touches;
2) It's hard to justify feeding Coleman (or any of the backs, not to single him out) when he's getting 2 yards/carry and sticking the offense in obvious passing situations.

Running backs are generally interchangeable. If there are holes, good backs will find them. When the line isn't opening holes there is only so much a back can do.

GSUhokie



| 10 years 9 months # ^

The line seemed to be opening holes in all games but Pitt, the back just didn't see them.

marcb2 | 10 years 8 months # ^

You're forgetting August legs in November...

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

you're ignoring the fact that with all the other RBs hurt Coleman got ALL of the practice reps and he went into each of those four games knowing that he was going to get all of the carries. He had confidence in knowing he would be in for the whole game. He also had more confidence and a higher level of comfort in the gameplan because he practiced it all week.

Rocco



| 10 years 9 months # ^

If Coleman lacks the confidence to deal with competition that's a bigger problem.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

if Coleman lacks the confidence to deal with competition he shouldn't be starting, right? Then why does he start?

Rocco



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Simple answer is because Shane is in over his head.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

yeah that's exactly what I'm getting at..I'd even go one further and say Loeffler is in over his head

this running game is failing for a myriad of reasons. I think the problems with the running game start with the dearth of talent but they don't stop there. I think coaching (or lack thereof, perhaps) is an issue. And not just direct position coaching, but also management. This poor running game stinks all the way up the ladder. Frank Beamer may have actually stepped in and laid down the law. We MIGHT actually see something different with the running game this week that results in some improvement. But I doubt it. Even if it does happen, I think it's too late in the game. Frank should have stepped in earlier IMO. The coaches recognized these problems before the season started but I haven't seen anything to suggest they've actually taken steps to resolve the problems. That's concerning to me.

bar1990

ATLIEN



| 10 years 9 months #

Isn't this the point of hiring Max Warner? Isn't he supposed to comb through tape, discover these trends and share them with the coaches?

hokie07ME | 10 years 9 months # ^

I thought we hired Max Warner to secure Lawson's commitment? /s

mitchell

BIG WIFE GUY



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Sarcasm? That seems pretty plausible

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months #

I feel vindicated. I've been very noisy on this topic the last few weeks and everything you've posted aligns beautifully with what I've been talking about.

Thanks for putting this together and providing me with the ammo I was too lazy to find myself.

Illinois Hokie | 10 years 9 months # ^

Where is Chopping Wood by the JUGS? She probably needs a cigarette after reading this article.

Choppin wood by the JUGS | 10 years 9 months # ^

I will be treating myself to a cigar and a whiskey or 10 tonight !!!

Was starting to compile the stats into chart form and then boom Joe and company hit a grand slam!

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Indeed!

Joe,

Joe Lanza

PUBLISHER



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Bragghokie



| 10 years 9 months #

Unfortunately I'll believe it when I see it. If JCC doesn't get the first carry of the game I'll be shocked. I really do hope McMillian becomes the the leading back. Someone call Billy Hite and have him talk to Shane about RBs. At least when Hite was the coach we had a dominant running game even when we didn't have NFL caliber guys in the backfield. So frustrating.

EDIT: So I seriously don't understand what the problem is. We all see it. CFB sees it. Where is the disconnect then in him telling either Shane or Scott to pick a back and stick with him?? I mean after last year and what we saw at the end with JCC and all the talk this year where is change? How have we not decided on a starting back to get the lions share of the carries??

GoKartMozart

SET THE TONE!



| 10 years 9 months # ^

CFB doesn't like to micromanage, which is admirable. Shane Beamer isn't a coach to these boys. He's their friend that has the responsibility of instructing them. He's trying to be their friend by balancing out the carries and getting everybody significant playing time. He doesn't have the guts to say to Trey or JCC, "You're not as good as Travon and you aren't going to get the ball as much."

My theory on why this is so is that Shane grew up as kid being buddies with his dad's players. Then he was a player and was buddies with his teammates. Now that he's a coach, he doesn't know how to do anything else except be buddies with these kids.

Edit: CFB is such a non-micromanager that he waits too long to step in with guidance when his assistants need it.

Leonard | 10 years 9 months # ^

I concur with your theory... I've often thought this myself. And, while it probably pays some dividends on the recruiting trail to be a buddy-buddy guy, Manager-Pal, and/or Coach-Pal is never, ever, effective.

That's how we play it here at Leonard Inc. While I am the only employee /manager, I take extraordinary measures to ensure lines are not crossed. I may go days without even talking to myself while on the job.

Egbert

BEER



| 10 years 8 months # ^

Sometimes I have to send myself home for inappropriate work attire.

Musky | 10 years 9 months # ^

From Stripes

"Who's your buddy? Who's your friend?

Hokie_Hi | 10 years 9 months #

The fact that our QB leads the team in carries (by a significant margin) and the lack of explosive plays tell us everything we need to know about our run game.

dmcross



| 10 years 9 months # ^

The ECU and Pitt games skew this, especially since it looks like he included sacks. But your overall point still stands.

Joe Lanza

PUBLISHER



| 10 years 9 months # ^

If you remove the 12 sacks, Motley still has 50 carries, 13 more than the next closest player.

hokie07ME | 10 years 9 months #

Joe,

is there any easy way to put in dividing lines so we can tell where one series ends and another begins? Right now, in the few cases where a back gets consecutive carries, we can't tell if that's in the same series or in back to back run-pass-pass-punt possessions.

Joe Lanza

PUBLISHER



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I went back and forth on that, but ultimately I didn't include it. I programmatically pulled all the play by play data from ESPN.com. I had to analyze and extract what I needed. What I included above took a decent amount of code (10 hours worth) and testing. A drive start and end wasn't explicitly designated in ESPN's HTML and I made the decision not to parse it.

However, I did desk check it. There wasn't a correlation between backs rotating in and out based on drive. That passes the eye test too. If Shane, Frank or Loeffler had explicitly said the backs would rotate every series, or every other series, I think this discussion would be less involved, and a post like this wouldn't even be a thing. Instead, they seem to rotate situationally on any given play.

Lines all over the pretty charts Joel created would have been a mess too.

hokie07ME | 10 years 9 months # ^

fair enough. Still a very enlightening (and disheartening) post.

dmcross



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Rotating based on the situation makes me think this is just as much Lefty as it is Shane. Hopefully something will change tonight. I don't really care as long as the ground game is productive.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Rotating based on the situation makes me think this is just as much Lefty as it is Shane.

I've gone back and forth on this thought. Ultimately, yes Lefty is responsible for the running game. That being said, I don't think Lefty is the one orchestrating which RB plays in which situation. I think that's left to Shane.

Here's my reasoning: Loeffler is the QB coach. He works with and develops those players specifically. He meets with them and reviews film. He evaluates where they are and he knows more about all of them than anyone else on staff. They're his responsibility. Beyond that, which is a pretty important position, he also has to put together the skeleton framework of a game plan each week.

I would imagine that once the skeleton framework is put together he meets with all of his position coaches, who have been tending to their specific position coaching duties concurrently with Lefty::QB, and distributes the game plan. It is then the responsibility of the position coaches to evaluate their respective players and prepare them to execute the game plan.

In an indirect way, Lefty may have some control over which RB is in the game simply by which play call he sends in. My theory, though, is that Shane determines which back is going to get the ball based on the play call. So Shane is immediately responsible for assigning the RB for the given play. I don't think Loeffler has the time or energy to figure out which RBs will run which plays. That's why he has Shane. That should be Shane's job.

More food for thought: Look at the other position groups. You don't see constant substitution or rotating players among the WRs or TEs. Loeffler has said that he doesn't like playing the same two receivers for an entire game. And we have other bodies at the position so how come they never play? I think that's up to Burden to decide. Loeffler lets Burden make that call. If it were up to Scot, I think we would see more breaks for Ford and Phillips. We also never see Cline, who has proven to be a viable option. That decision is on Stinespring. He's their coach and he decides which players play based on situation. If Lefty was orchestrating the RB carousel I think it would follow logically that the other groups would have more substitutions throughout the games. They don't. Therefore, I think the rotation lands pretty squarely on Shane's shoulders. Not Scot's.

whitman387 | 10 years 9 months # ^

This is why I haven't blamed Lefty for the RBs...only the playcalling...it's solid until he gets tired of watching a new RB fail on each play, then he goes all air-raid to compensate...

HokieFamilyLegacy4Life | 10 years 9 months # ^

I agree with this completely. Lefty is definitely pushing backs with certain skill sets for certain plays. Trey is a good pass blocker, McMillan can catch and etc...it is frustrating because on one hand you want the player package that gives you the best chance to succeed but it also limits your ability to have a single back come in and take over the game. I agree with above that Shane is probably more their buddy than their coach but I think Lefty has to catch some heat for micromanaging the offense here down to which back does which set.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Lefty is definitely pushing backs with certain skill sets for certain plays.

I don't think you can say this. For as much conjecture and opinion that I've posted all over this thread, I don't think ANYTHING is definite. Lefty MIGHT be pulling strings, but he might also not be. See my argument directly above your post.

ruhokie | 10 years 9 months # ^

I think you're correct in that it can't be proven unless we can get Lefty to admit it directly. However, I really think Lefty views players as chess pieces in that each has their strengths and weaknesses and are not interchangeable and calls plays as such and so that as much as Shane determines which back(s) goes into the game.

Just look at all the formations and when has Trey run the jet sweep, how many times has Trayvon had the opportunity to run inside the tackles? I think if you talked to an opposing defensive coordinator or asked French, they would say there are definite tendencies on what plays we're going to run depending on which back is in the game.

Illinois Hokie | 10 years 9 months # ^

Also, just because Lefty seems to like personnel groupings, we have no guarantee he's the one assigning players to groups. It could just as easily be that Lefty provides the position coaches descriptions of the duties needed in a particular group, such as the tailback and fullback will both have blocking duties, the tailback will release into the flat as a check down, etc. And then the positions coach might have the duty of assigning players to that group.

I'm not saying this is how it is. I'm just saying, tons of teams are using personnel groupings, but we seem to be having a particularly tougher time of it getting a consistent tailback production going in the ground game using said groupings. We have no idea what we are doing differently, if anything, from other offenses that use groups that is causing our ground game struggles.

LifetimeHokie12 | 10 years 9 months #

So is Shane just a bad RB coach?

It seemed painfully obvious from the time Edmunds couldn't score at the end of the first half against OSU that he shouldn't be getting many carries. Going back and watching those two runs again, its amazing he didn't score. I don't understand how the coaches can watch that, and how soft he tends to hit the hole since, and still think he's a good option.

And JC, for a small guy, is not quick. He is fast in a straight line and runs hard, but there's only so many tackles a guy his size can break. The 5-7 guys that are successful rely on being elusive, and he is just plain not elusive.

It really bothers me how obvious this seems and Travon still doesn't get more carries. Hearing Shane essentially say that seniority is taking priority for who gets the bulk of the carries really makes me questions if he is good at his job.

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.

I know I can't do it better, but, in any job, results are usually a good sign of competency.

I get that the Pitt game was more on the O-line, but half the time a carry goes to JC or Trey it feels like a wasted play. I hope this is what Beamer was referring to, but its sad it took this many games.

Illinois Hokie | 10 years 9 months # ^

The evidence is mounting. Frank shoehorned him into the RB coach position (with no previous experience at the position) just for a chance to coach with his son before he retired.

VTJ12



| 10 years 9 months # ^

It's painfully obvious that Shane is a bad RB coach at this point. Regardless of whether or not Frank returns next year, I really hope Shane is gone. I've just gotten to that point with him.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

He has a lot more responsibilities than just running back rotation. Everyone talks about how good McMillian looks and that has to be attributed to Shane Beamer as well. People like to cherry pick things they don't like while blatantly ignore things that go in his favor as a coach and it is ridiculous.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Everyone talks about how good McMillian looks and that has to be attributed to Shane Beamer as well.

I don't understand this sentiment...why does it have to be attributed to Shane? Why can't it be attributed to pure talent?

I would be fine with crediting Shane for how good McMillian looks running the ball.....if it were consistent across all the RBs. When only 1 of your 3 starting tailbacks is running well that doesn't scream great coaching to me. If only 1 of your 3 tailbacks is running poorly I might be inclined to think that's more on the player than the coach. At this point, if you credit Shane completely with Travon's production, Shane's still only producing at a 33% clip. That's not going to cut it at most programs.

EDIT for further expansion on your comments.

People like to cherry pick things they don't like while blatantly ignore things that go in his favor as a coach and it is ridiculous.

1: You're not wrong that the noisy faction of fans are typically the ones who are pointing out things they are critical of. That happens everywhere. When everyone's happy and things are going smoothly people are less analytical and critical in general. When things are going poorly people are searching for answers and trying to critique every minute detail to figure out what the heck is going wrong. Fair or not, Shane has become a big target because the running game has struggled mightily pretty much since he's been on staff. Could that be coincidence? Perhaps. It's hard to ignore trends though.

2: Shane does some things well. He's personable. I thought he did a good job handling the Military Bowl as Frank's stand-in. I think he relates well to players and has a good relationship with them. He obviously cares about them and I think they see that and appreciate it. He's always going to bat for his guys and that's certainly admirable. I think the jury is still out on his recruiting ability but I think people might be willing to give him benefit of the doubt there because he has shown energy and enthusiasm that I think recruits are drawn to.

3: At this time I'd like to invite you to point out things that have gone in Shane's favor that have been blatantly ignored. I don't think you can point to pure talent as one of those Pros for Shane but I'm interested to know what else we're missing.

I have been very critical of Shane and the running game in general but I don't dislike the guy. I just don't think he's the right guy for the job he currently has. I have a hard time not questioning how he ended up there. I do think it's foolish to think nepotism has nothing to do with it.

I also wonder how much of the running situation is truly Shane's fault, though. As the direct link to the RBs (being their coach and all) he's the obvious scapegoat. Without being in the meetings with coaches it's hard to tell how much influence Loeffler has on the situation. I think there is just enough evidence to suggest that Beamer is indeed the main culprit for the problems we have but we can't completely rule out the possibility that Loeffler has more of a hand in this than we're surmising.

Ultimately it does fall back on Loeffler. He's the OC and he's responsible for making sure his staff members are doing their jobs adequately. I am of the opinion that Shane is not doing his job at a high enough level to justify retention. That, however, is Loeffler's decision to make and his responsibility to make a change if he deems it to be necessary.

Therein lies another potential issue. Does Loeffler actually have any say in the matter dealing with Shane? Or does big-man-Beams get the final word? It's impossible to know if Loeffler has even expressed that Shane needs to be replaced or not. If he has, it's impossible to know if Frank overruled Loeffler and told him to just deal with it.

If the running game continues to struggle I don't see how this team can salvage this season and make it to a bowl game. The offense lives and dies by the running game. The team lives and dies by the production of the offense. If we can't run, we can't score, we can't win. If we miss a bowl this year I would expect a new HC at the helm on Sept. 3, 2016. I doubt very much that any of the offensive staff will still be here then.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

Implying that McMillians success is purely from his skills and has nothing to do with coaching is ridiculous. He wasn't a running back coming out of highschool. He was dynamic with the ball but that doesn't mean he magically learned the nuances of the position.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

What, specifically, have you seen McMillian do that is a direct result of sound fundamental coaching and not just pure athleticism? He hasn't fumbled the QB-RB exchange on the jet sweep...so there's that..I guess?

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

Let me just look through all of my footage of every play he has been in on this year. If he is good just because of "pure athleticism" then I'm not sure he can be an every down back since he won't be able to block or make the appropriate cuts.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

That's certainly a valid point and a pretty big concern. If he can't be an every down back maybe that's why he isn't an every down back. But if the coaches were so excited about him, how come he hasn't progressed into that role? Whose fault is that?

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

That would be running back rotation not player development

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I'm not sure I follow your logic. You're saying that the running back rotation is the culprit for the lack of development?

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

He hasn't been given the role of an every down back because of the running back rotation. No one has been given that role.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Chicken and Egg. Are the players failing to develop because of the running back rotation? Are the players forced into a running back rotation because of lack of development? Which is it? Either way, I think that's on Shane. On the one hand, he can't develop his RBs so he has to rotate them to get the most out of them. On the other hand, they can't develop because he's forcing them into specific roles. I don't see how you can find praise for Shane in either case.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

You just aren't understanding what I am saying.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

No I guess not. It looks like you're saying that the running back rotation is the reason McMillian hasn't developed into an every down back. Am I at least on the right track with that?

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

I think he can be an every down back he just hasn't had the chance because of the rotation. His skills have developed but his role has not.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Okay. So I'm going to repeat what you said in my words to make sure we're on the same page. Travon might have the ability to be an every down back but he hasn't had the chance to do so because of the rotation.

Right?

So, who are we blaming the rotation on? Shane or Lefty? I think on the micro level it's Shane's fault. On a macro level it's certainly Lefty's.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

Yep pretty much.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

So would it be fair to say that you're not a fan of the coaching decisions Shane has made but you're not ready to accuse Shane of poor player development?

I'm basing my opinion on the eye test which, frankly, isn't very fair. I don't think Shane is a good RB coach for many reasons but I'm just a stupid fan and I don't really know much beyond the fact that our running game is garbage. If you're of the opinion that Lefty is the main culprit for our pedestrian running game and it's not Shane's fault I won't fully agree with you but I won't try to convince you otherwise. It's certainly a possibility that I've considered, but I just don't see how Shane isn't at least somewhat at fault.

whitman387 | 10 years 9 months # ^

Easily the most circular and confusing failure at a disagreement I've seen on TKP. It's still mini-Beam's fault...he just doesn't want to say it that way.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Lol

Bragghokie



| 10 years 9 months # ^

How can a player develop if he isn't given a large amount of carries. The obviously have to split the carries in practice as well so he can't fully develop there either. Without naming a starting back and leaning on him for the bulk of the carries (whomever it is) there is no development in the player or at least it comes a lot slower than if they are getting a lot of carries.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

yeah, exactly. That's part of my argument. There are lots of reasons I'm not a fan of Shane as a RB coach. This apparent oversight being one of them

MEchase | 10 years 9 months # ^

#3. The running backs don't have fumbling problems.

That's about all I got.

hokie07ME | 10 years 9 months # ^

so...they got 99 problems (and only 9 against Pitt), but fumbling ain't one of them?

HokieAlum6144



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Except for JCC. He still has a fumbling problem.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

If I only carried the ball 6 times I'm pretty sure I could limit fumbles too....

but that is a good point. If nothing else, Shane can really wield a punching glove on a stick with the best of 'em

VTJ12



| 10 years 9 months # ^

The first drive of the Pitt game: 3 plays, 3 different backs, 3 and out. Shane isn't developing well-rounded RBs who can be trusted in all aspects of the game. If it's a critical pass play, he rotates in the guy he thinks is best at blocking assignments. If it's a short yardage situation, he rotates in the back he thinks can run through the tackes and move the chains. If it's a sitatution where the RB is involved in the passing game, he rotates in the best pass catcher. All of these guys have serious flaws in their games that aren't being improved through coaching. I would think you would coach your guys up so that they are strong in all phases and can be trusted in any situation if needed. And that is not happening. We have RB by committee, and it is not working.

As far as other duties go, Shane was heralded as being a great recruiter. After some early success, Shane has really struggled as of late. And some of the big guys he was responsible for are non-factors or not even on campus anymore. So yes - I'm of the opinion he's not a good RB coach.

bar1990

ATLIEN



| 10 years 9 months # ^

The first drive of the Pitt game: 3 plays, 3 different backs, 3 and out. Shane isn't developing well-rounded RBs who can be trusted in all aspects of the game. If it's a critical pass play, he rotates in the guy he thinks is best at blocking assignments. If it's a short yardage situation, he rotates in the back he thinks can run through the tackes and move the chains. If it's a sitatution where the RB is involved in the passing game, he rotates in the best pass catcher. All of these guys have serious flaws in their games that aren't being improved through coaching. I would think you would coach your guys up so that they are strong in all phases and can be trusted in any situation if needed.

BINGO!

Billy Hite spent time rotating RW, DE and DW in 2010 (before RW got hurt). However, Hite left each player in for an entire drive at a time. I'm too lazy to use the google machine to find a quote, but I do remember him saying that he wanted to leave players in for entire drives in order to establish rhythm.

Now, either there's a problem with player development (we don't have an 'every down' back on our roster because we can't coach one up) or there's a problem with picking a back (the 'rhythm' argument) or it's a recruiting problem (we don't have an 'every down' back on our roster because we haven't been able to get an ACC level talent since DW).

Mason Naumann | 10 years 9 months # ^

However, Hite left each player in for an entire drive at a time. I'm too lazy to use the google machine to find a quote, but I do remember him saying that he wanted to leave players in for entire drives in order to establish rhythm.

I've gone back and looked at the Pitt game. No back got more than 3 consecutive SNAPS.

Not carries. Snaps.

On two occasions, a back got three consecutive snaps. Both of those occasions happened during a "hurry-up" session when Loeffler didn't substitute anyone in order to prevent the defense from doing the same. Basically, Loeffler and Beamer are rotating backs every snap unless they go hurry up.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Loeffler and Beamer are rotating backs every snap unless they go hurry up.

In your esteemed opinion, is the rotation of the backs more Shane's doing, or Loeffler's?

I've convinced myself that it's mostly Shane, though Loeffler bears responsibility for making sure his staff members are doing their jobs adequately so I don't think he can be absolved of blame. But, I'm not a football junkie like you are, so I'm interested what your take is on this detail. TIA.

Mason Naumann | 10 years 9 months # ^

I would be 100 percent guessing, every staff is going to make personnel decisions differently.

If I had to guess though, I would say Loeffler comes up with the different play packages every week (for example, some weeks he'll want to use more jet sweep and some weeks he'll want to get under center more) and he'll communicate that to Shane during the week. Shane will then decide which players will play in what packages. During the game, he rotates players based partially on the play being called and partly on "who is hot".

So mostly Shane.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Okay well at least that makes me feel a little bit more like I'm not completely off-base with my assumptions. Obviously it's impossible to know without being involved with the coaching staff so we'll never truly know, but that's how I figured it was structured purely based on what makes sense in my little brain.

VTJ12



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Speaking of which: what happened to our hurry up? I remembered the offense being pretty effective when they used the faster tempo, but we seem to have stopped using it for the most part...

...Oh yeah, probably so Shane has time to sub in a new back every play.

Mason Naumann | 10 years 9 months # ^

Loeffler normally goes no huddle when he sees something on film... normally a defense that defaults to two high safeties when facing a no huddle situation. It's an easy way for him to get a numbers advantage in the box.

When you can't run block and/or your backs can't get big plays then it diminishes any return.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

Andy Bitter has mention it before but there are plenty of cases of coaches working on position groups that they didn't play. Experience helps but it is definitely not the only factor.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I don't think Illinois necessarily meant playing experience. Shane came into that coaching position with no experience coaching the position. Basically, Shane has never played or coached RBs. I don't think a P5 program run by your dad is really the best place to get your first exposure to a position group which is critical to the success of the offense. I like Shane as a person but after 3 years of sub-par RB production and relatively little evidence of any development at the position I'm inclined to think he's in over his head. Shane may make a good HC one day but IMHO he's not cut out to be a RB coach.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

The whole offense has been sub-par. Blaming the running backs coach for the offense not producing enough yardage is an over simplification of a complex problem that involves the entire offense.

NickVT10 | 10 years 9 months # ^

It isn't about producing yardage that makes him look like a bad RB coach. It is how he handles the position. We rotate wayyyy too many guys. He comes out and says that each guy brings something to the table, which means each has their strengths and he puts them in to do those things. The other teams know this and it is incredibly predictable. Travon is going to run jet sweep actions. JC is going to run stretch plays. Edmunds is going to get inside zone plays. Rogers is going to block and be a 3rd down back. It is incredibly obvious. Take the guy who does the most things the best and put him out there. He claims no one has separated themselves from the others but the stats show that one has even though he doesn't give anyone a chance past 2 plays at a time.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

They get a chance every day at practice

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

how do we know they're not just practicing their predetermined roles in practice for game prep? We can't be certain that each back gets a full complement of running plays to showcase their ability?

On the flip side, we can't be certain that they don't either. You have an argument, but no evidence to back it up.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

There is no evidence to support any claims of what happens at practice because not even the media sees that.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

agreed. But there is plenty of evidence from games to support claims that a)Travon is the best option at tailback b)Shane isn't developing the backs c)The running back rotation is doing absolutely nothing to help our running game or offense in general

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

There isn't proof that the backs haven't developed there is only proof that the running game hasn't improved much. Linking the success of the running back game to the development of the backs is ignoring other factors that affect the running game.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Linking the success of the running back game to the development of the backs is ignoring other factors that affect the running game.

This is a fair point. There are all kinds of reasons the running game may falter. I do know, however, that both French and Mason have noted in their film reviews that early in the season the OL was opening huge holes but the RBs were failing to hit those holes and get the yards that they could have potentially gotten. In many of those instances the RBs were still getting positive yards but not explosive plays. In those cases I think it's fair to lay the blame on the RBs.

Given that, however, you're right that there is a lot more that goes into the success of the running game than just the development of the player. I'll agree with you there. OL blocking is a huge factor. How the defense is set up to defend a given play is a factor.

Based on film reviews, though, the players have not been hitting the hole with speed and confidence that you expect from a starting D1 tailback. They are reading the blocking wrong, missing the hole, or just generally getting there late or tentatively. If that's not evidence of failed development then I don't know what is.

marcb2 | 10 years 9 months # ^

You believing something to be true is not proof. There is proof of none of these.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I said there is evidence. I don't see how you could argue that there isn't evidence available to support those claims.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I don't disagree with this assessment at all. If you read my (edited) post above I point out that ultimately the failed running game rests on Loeffler's shoulders. This is the 3rd year in and we're still not doing the fundamental things with any kind of consistency. That's a huge red flag IMO. Yes, the offense as a whole is dysfunctional and that lands at the feet of Loeffler. That being said, I still have some concerns with Shane as the RB coach. He's certainly not the only problem with this offense but from where I sit he's not helping anything.

If the whole offense is the issue (it is) and Loeffler is to blame the onus is now on Frank to do something about it. Somehow, I feel like that ship sailed long ago. Frank has shown that he's too little too late to make changes when necessary. Staff stability is more important to him than high level production. If he had made the changes to the offensive coaching staff 10 years ago when they needed to be made we might not be having this discussion. VT has been about Defense for almost all of Frank's tenure. The offense we've had has rested on the backs of superior talent. If not for the Mike Vicks and Tyrod Taylors that this team has had, we might not have won 10 games a year with ELITE defenses for such a long stretch.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

The offense and the run game were improving...until Pitt... And now it looks like there was no real improvement from last year

Choppin wood by the JUGS | 10 years 9 months # ^

the scary/sad thing is Shane is one of the higher paid RB coaches in the ACC.. granted BC,Miami, Duke, Wake and Syracuse don't have to disclose salary #'s.

Jay Graham (Florida State) - $403,000
Shane Beamer (Virginia Tech) - $252,810
Chris Beatty (Virginia--whoops) - $250,000
Des Kitchings (NC State) - $241,560
Bryan Cook (Georgia Tech) - $183,950
Lamar Owens (Georgia Tech) - $183,950
Larry Porter (North Carolina) - $181,667
Kolby Smith (Louisville) - $150,000

some other RB coaches salary across the NCAA.

Utah- Dennis Erickson $275,000
Washington- Keith Bhonapha $250,000
Minnesota- Pat Poore $230,000

HokieAlum6144



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Wisconsin is in the ACC?

hokie07ME | 10 years 9 months # ^

must be in the Atlantic cause we never play them

ruhokie | 10 years 9 months # ^

While I don't think Shane is a good running backs coach, Shane Beamer did have experience coaching running backs before he came to Virginia Tech. I see too many fans that keep stating this incorrect fact.

While coaching at SEC school Mississippi State, Shane coached running backs under Sylvester Croom in 2006. Again, I'm not saying he's a good coach or the right fit, I'm just saying he did have some experience.

Not to pick on you, but I keep seeing this on multiple VT websites and we as fans are wrong on the no experience part.

Link: http://www.hailstate.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=16800&ATCLID=931609

Choppin wood by the JUGS | 10 years 9 months # ^

so 1 year at coaching rb's is experience, i'd say it was more like putting his feet in the water.

he went to SC in 07 and coached OLB and ST's.

Interesting how both of those look pretty similar.

Boby Dixon Career- 2006 was interesting

ruhokie | 10 years 9 months # ^

Not sure how you could say it's not experience whether it's getting his feet wet or not. My whole point is he did have experience. Not that he's good, adequate or that we couldn't do better. His dad didn't hire without him having coached the position before.

Choppin wood by the JUGS | 10 years 9 months # ^

fair enough.. its experience, but nowhere near enough experience to warrant a P5 RB coach job.

We went 11-3 the year before we hired Shane a RB coach.. sooo we couldn't find a RB coach with 3+ years of experience after finishing 16th in the AP poll, winning the ACC title and going to the Orange Bowl.

I don't believe that for 1 second

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Oh definitely! Shane's hiring reeks of nepotism. That's upsetting to me because I really like the Beamers but I think this move was doomed from the get-go. It should never have happened.

ruhokie | 10 years 9 months # ^

I agree. I think Shane was hired primarily for recruiting, to help get the staff get younger and the thought was he was smart enough he could make the running back title work. He started out recruiting great, but we are almost non-existent now in Richmond his primary territory, and the running backs have not shown improvement since he got here.

GoKartMozart

SET THE TONE!



| 10 years 9 months # ^

to help get the staff get younger

Bingo! When the big staff turnover happened, if you remember, a big emphasis was put on hiring younger coaches with more fire and ability to relate to the kids.

Illinois Hokie | 10 years 9 months # ^

Thank you for this.

I knew Shane had been hired by Mississippi State as the cornerbacks coach, and was later hired by South Carolina for the same position. I was not aware that Shane had the added responsibility of running backs coach his last season at MSU.

whitman387 | 10 years 9 months # ^

"added" ??? no...they moved him away from corner-backs...05 Miss St pass defense was top 30...VT #3 at the time...

Bragghokie



| 10 years 9 months # ^

But even with him thinking seniority he still doesn't give either JCC or Trey the bulk of carries. Billy Hite was big on seniority and thought the backs had to do their time before they started. However we still always had a doninant running game and the bulk of carries went to one back. Jones and Suggs may have been a bit different but they were both dynamic and at times were both in the backfield at the same time. It wasn't one to jones one to Suggs one to someone else. Same as when RMFW and Darren Evans were here. I became Leary when DW was going to split carries with them and I don't think any of them had a super year that year. Then DW was the main back. After he left our RB situation just became horrible.

Rocco



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Shane was hired to help recruiting, specifically in the Richmond area. How'd Shane do recruiting Richmond last year?

Chris

TEEMING WITH INTEL



| 10 years 9 months #

Edmunds and JC both have performed adequately in their respective careers when they were the primary ballcarrier. The real issue, and we have harped on this a lot, is just not sticking with one guy.

That said, it seems like it was years ago when it was the Marshawn/Shai show and none of these guys were going to be looking at getting more than a couple carries a game. I'm still excited about the return of those guys, they seem like the way we get back to the running success of the past. Granted, we need them to come back healthy, which isn't guaranteed. All that said, I do think highly of Travon's potential and what I've seen so far and I want to see him get the bulk of carries.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months #

Saying that the major problem is the running back rotation is an over simplification of the difficulties Virginia Tech has with running the football. While it is a contributor to the lack of a strong run game it is not the only factor that is involved. It also comes down to execution, blocking, play calling, reads. Placing the blame on one unit or one coach is asinine.

Joe Lanza

PUBLISHER



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Are you referencing the article, or was that reply-fail?

Either way, I never wrote it was a "major" problem, but it is certainly a problem. Coaches, players and anyone watching the games agree. The point of this piece was to highlight that. I didn't think it needed the caveat that football is the ultimate team game, and running the ball depends on a multitude of factors. Most of TKP's readers are smarter than that, and there've been numerous articles on TKP that have hit the other points.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

Reply fail. I agree with the discussion of the data in the article. I don't agree with the sentiment some people have that Shane Beamer should be fired because of a lagging running game that they only attribute to a running back rotation.

VTJ12



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I don't think it's just because of the running back rotation that people are faulting Shane. Can you identify something that you think Shane is doing exceptionally well? Trey is hesitant hitting the hole fast. JC struggles to find the hole and runs right into defenders and blockers. I think Shane hasn't developed these guys into good all-around backs. They all have flaws in their games, and that might be one reason he's intent on using the RB carousel to pair a player with the situation that fits their strength.

MEchase | 10 years 9 months # ^

They don't fumble.

It appears to me that Shane has isolated what he thinks each RBs strength is and reps those plays in practice and in the game...meaning Trey gets to work on his inside runs while McMillian works on his jet sweeps, not getting time to practice, learn, and develop at other t asks.
What's the chances that all 3 RBs get first team reps at every technique run? I don't think there is enough time in the week.

Joel Smith



| 10 years 9 months # ^

If RB's are being played for specific plays, then that's a poor game plan. The defense knows your intentions just by what RB is on the field.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

He has certainly developed Sam Rogers

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

That's like saying Mike O'cain developed Tyrod Taylor. It's pretty well known that Sam Rogers has work ethic levels that are off the charts. He gleans as much knowledge about the offense as he possibly can from all of the coaches every opportunity that he gets. He works his tail off and he studies the game like a QB. Yet he still misses assignments in pass pro from time to time and he only gets a couple carries a game. What part of his game can you attribute to Beamer? Sam's best plays have been receptions. Maybe Beamer should be a receivers coach.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

Implying that players improved without coaching is ridiculous and that is what you just did

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Well, in fairness, has Sam really improved? He was pretty good to start with and he's still just pretty good.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

I think he definitely has. He went from walk on to one of our best weapons on offense and one of the most consistent players.

VTJ12



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Okay, so if Shane can be credited with Rogers' development, and he is our best option and most developed back, then why aren't we just feeding the ball to Sam every play? And why haven't we seen similar development with the other backs? It's not indicative of good coaching if you can only develop one viable back in over 3 years, and then somehow find a way to not get him the ball.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

Why don't you ask Shane why we don't hand it to Rogers every play. Some players just don't get that much better regardless of coaching. Knowles didn't get better and we all think Morehead was a pretty good coach.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Stanford got better. Byrn got better. Coles got better. Moorehead developed 3/4. Shane has, based on your argument that Sam has improved (which I think is debatable), developed 1/4. Not the same.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

Stanford got better and then worse, same as Coleman.

VTJ12



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I don't think every back other than Sam is a bust. If so, then his evaluation of talent is highly questionable. I don't think Coleman improved substantially, I think he is the same back he was two years ago. His numbers were better because he was the only viable option for the final stretch of last season. When you only have one guy to lean on, he's going to be getting most all the reps in practice for every running back duty. More reps = more consistent running game. JC is not the most desirable option out of all of our backs because of his size. It limits his durability and effectiveness between the tackles. Other backs on the roster with better measurables and higher ceilings are not being developed as every down backs and are practicing their predetermined roles that highlight their strongest abilities. I think if we picked two backs based upon results from limited carries and upside/big play potential, we would arrive at a combo of McMillian and Trey, with McMillian getting the bulk of the carries and Trey spelling him in certain situations. Give them all the reps in practice involving all expected duties from the backs, and run with them.

I suppose we will agree to disagree on Shane.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

You can't really make any definitive statements in what they practice since no one sees practice.

VTJ12



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I suppose that gives the coaches the ultimate out, doesn't it? No one knows what exactly is going on, so no one can definitively criticize the coaches. All I can go on is what I see on the field. It doesn't look like McMillian is practicing much more than the jet sweep because that's all he does on the field. Seems like it's a waste of time to have him practice more if that's all you're using him for. If they are all practicing the same duties, then who is making the decision to assign roles, and why?

Choppin wood by the JUGS | 10 years 9 months # ^

I think its 100% clear as to who is assigning the roles.. its Shane.. He publicly came out and said he apologized to Trey and JC for not getting them more carries. Therefore it would seem that he picks who plays and who doesn't.

I apologized to Trey and J.C. yesterday. J.C.'s our starting tailback and he played seven plays against East Carolina. Trey's a co-starter in our opinion and played 15 plays or something along those lines. And a lot of that had to do with the game. We had to throw down the stretch quite a bit. We had to try to come back."

We've got to give J.C. and Trey an opportunity to get in the flow of games."

Rocco



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Moorehead had two true freshmen in Ford and Phillips ready to play from day 1. That's probably more impressive than anything Shane has done (and I don't know if Moorehead was a great WR coach, but that's a different thread).

It hasn't helped Shane that in his tenure there's been turnover at RB due to injuries (Edmunds, Williams), stupidity (Michael Holmes), or in McKenzie's case, both. Edmunds still looks a step slower since his 2013 ankle injury- the VT medical staff may have claimed another victim.

Choppin wood by the JUGS | 10 years 9 months # ^

can you imagine if Shai and Marshawn were both healthy..

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

My issue with Shane isn't just the rotation of backs. I have seen exactly no development or improvement year-to-year among the backs. You could argue that I'm cherry picking here a little because all of the backs have been hurt. But Coleman has been healthy as long as I can remember and I don't see how he's better now than he was 2 years ago.

Another point I like to hit on is Shane's insistence on playing to the strength of his players. That to me is an indicator that he's not working to eliminate the weaknesses but rather highlight their strengths. Regardless of your profession, I believe strongly that you're not going to grow and reach your full potential if you don't spend more time improving your weak areas but instead continue to do something you're already good at. Just because somebody is good at something doesn't mean they should be pigeon-holed into that role. In fact, I believe quite the opposite needs to happen. You need to get that person out of their comfort zone and get them to work on something they're not so good at. Guess what. They'll get better at that area they weren't good at before and they'll still be good at what they were good at before. Now you have someone who is good at 2 things instead of 1. Find something wrong with that. I dare you.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

Coleman developed in to a much better back last season and the regressed and honestly I don't know why but I'm not sure you can blame that solely on Beamer. And it's not about being good at 2 things it is about being the best at two things. That is why he has a running back rotation. None of the players have stepped up to be the best at multiple facets of the game. McMillian hopefully will by the end of this season.

marcb2 | 10 years 9 months # ^

No, not everyone agrees and there is plenty of evidence -- even in VT's past -- of running back by committee being successful.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Running back by committee isn't the problem. Running back one play at a time and then switching them out...that's the problem. Billy Hite's goal was to keep a single back in the game for an entire drive. He'd only sub them out if they were hurt or needed a breather with rare exceptions. That is completely different from substituting backs every time a new play call comes down from SL

vtandy | 10 years 9 months #

Painful.

cds7c | 10 years 9 months #

He's going to be a real speed guy in our backfield.

That's Beamer speak for saying that they don't think McMillian is an every down back. Their backs are against the wall and I hope they give McMillian every carry, but that statement is an assessment of how they initially anticipated using McMillian. End arounds, lots of end arounds.
I think they tried to slow feed McMillian due to his inexperience, but the failure of the first two backs has played their hand.

mitchell

BIG WIFE GUY



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Exact same way I read that.

He's going to be a real ~~speed~~ jet sweep guy in our backfield.

cds7c | 10 years 9 months # ^

It's on Loeffler too. Wilson was a speed guy and we got him the ball in ways where he could be successful. Loefflers Inverted Veer just takes so much time and is dependent on Malleck and/or Rogers making nearly impossible blocks on the edge over and over again.

Joe Lanza

PUBLISHER



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I tend to agree with that, but there are a million other quotes from Frank lauding McMillian. He praised him during spring ball.

mitchell

BIG WIFE GUY



| 10 years 9 months #

I'm still hoping somebody really hammers Shame about this at a media session.

Choppin wood by the JUGS | 10 years 9 months # ^

I don't think you can hammer shane about this in a professional way and even if a question is asked we will get the same response of "we're going to try to limit the rb's used and focus on two"

showing him these charts or stats won't get him to change his mind.. sadly

if anything these charts/stats are an easier more visual way for us to learn that we are not a good running team.

Joe Lanza

PUBLISHER



| 10 years 9 months # ^

He wasn't requested this week. If it's the same old situation on tonight, then TKP will request him.

GoKartMozart

SET THE TONE!



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Yes! If we see the same old, same old, I hope it comes to that.

You're really good with hammers, Joe. Hammer away!

cds7c | 10 years 9 months # ^

I don't. I hope he gets it right tonight and we run for 300 yards and win by 30.

mitchell

BIG WIFE GUY



| 10 years 9 months # ^

If he "gets it right" tonight, I think we can credit daddy (or maybe Loeffler) for that.

cds7c | 10 years 9 months # ^

Shane Beamer may have his warts, but let's not go assuming Scot Loeffler is any more accomplished.

marcb2 | 10 years 9 months #

[I know I'm gonna get hammered for this because it's goes against the support for the conventional wisdom that everyone wants to believe must be true].

But sorry, I fail to see where any of this data supports either the headline ("Hokies must better focus distribution of rushing attempts") or that statistically, McMillian is Tech's "most productive option"...most productive option at what? Jet sweeps? Feature back running inside and outside and pass blocking?

Let's just ignore that comparing all run plays as the same is comparing apples and oranges. Nevertheless any good statistical analysis would throw out an outlier and frankly not only was McMillian's run vs Furman an outlier, but any statistics vs an FCS team are an outlier. Take out the Furman game and Trey Edmunds is Tech's most productive option -- most yardage per carries and most explosive plays (and I'll bet most broken tackles and most yards after hit). And again, that doesn't even take into account the number of carries he's gotten in goal-line situations and tougher carries inside the tackles -- or the other intangibles required of a feature RB.

The data tells us nothing about whether carries are too widely distributed, distributed appropriately, or not distributed widely enough. Pretty much all the data shows us is that rushing attempts have been 1) distributed widely, 2) that it worked pretty well when VT played well and not so well when VT didn't (shocker), and 3) that the QB got a much greater share of the rushing load when Brewer went down (which is the real story, IMO).

Choppin wood by the JUGS | 10 years 9 months # ^

did you see the ACC RB breakdown? -> good look here ACC RB Breakdown

We're 1 of maybe 3 teams that use 3 rbs and use all 3 all the time. No coincidence that teams using 2 RB's are getting more yards and more production.

The traditional split of 50-30-20 isn't even close to what we're doing at VT and I would be ok with that.. We have a 32-31-28 and 9% split between Travon, JC, Trey and Sam..

Hokiemacho | 10 years 9 months # ^

Are teams with offenses as bad as ours having more success with just two backs?

Choppin wood by the JUGS | 10 years 9 months # ^

Lets look at Nebraska-- They're 2-3 with loses to BYU, Miami and Illinois. Wins are South Alabama and Southern Mississippi.

Nebraska- 193.2 rushing yards per game (including QB yards) ranked 42nd QB has 37 carries for 156 yards
VT- 166.4 rushing yards per game (including QB yards) ranked tied 75th QB has 62 carries for 150 yards

hokie07ME | 10 years 9 months # ^

BOOM

I'd say she found a great team to compare against.

Hokiemacho | 10 years 8 months # ^

Thanks!

marcb2 | 10 years 9 months # ^

Yes I did. And I believe I commented that all it shows is that VT is 1) distributing the ball to more backs than other teams 2) they're doing it more equally and 3) teams doing less of 1 & 2 than VT are both winning and losing doing so.

That data proves nothing about the efficacy (or lack thereof) of VT's approach.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

The running game is broken. That much is obvious. I don't know if Brewer going down is really to blame for that. Maybe it is. Maybe he plays tonight. If he does, maybe we run for 200 yards. That will cure all ills.

Until then, we're searching for answers. Why is the running game broken? What do we look at? Stats. Why? Because a majority of us have a technical education and numbers/charts/graphs/stats make sense to us.

What do the stats show us? Well, the running game is broken. Why is it broken? I don't know, what are other teams doing? Well, we're the only team who rotates 3 RBs into the game within 5 consecutive plays. Nobody else does that. Why are we doing that? Does it make sense?

Everything here is just theory. We're not coaches. We don't actually know as much about these players as the coaches do. What I can tell you, though, is that even though the stats indicate Travon is the most productive back, the fact that someone can disagree with hard numbers and have a somewhat defensible argument indicates to me that we don't have enough data to make a great argument.

We need more data? Why? BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GIVING ANY RBs A FAIR ENOUGH CHANCE TO SHOW WHAT THEY CAN DO! I don't care if you think it's akin to handing out Participation Awards by giving a single back an entire series all by himself. I don't honestly think you can truly evaluate a RB on spot duty. And right now, all of our RBs are getting spot duty. We don't know what we have because we're constantly cycling them in and out. The OL isn't always going to block everyone on a play. Why is it the RBs fault if on the one play he has to show what he's got the OL misses a block and he's tackled for a loss. Then he comes out. Then the next guy goes in to show what he's got and the OL gets their assignments right but the RB misses the hole for no gain. Then he comes out and the next guy comes in to show what he's got. The OL gets confused on a blitz pick up and the RB manages to make the first guy miss but gets tackled after a short gain. Then we're punting.

If that's the data you have, how can you tell which of the 3 is the best? Seriously?

marcb2 | 10 years 9 months # ^

The problem is that the data were basically saying when we played well and wore yellow shoes, we played well. And when we played poorly and we wore yellow shoes, we played poorly. Therefore we shouldn't wear yellow shoes.

Has it occurred to you that the issue with the running game might just be a simple as perhaps none of the RBs is good enough at all things on a consistent basis (particularly without a significant pass threat) and that Motley being fairly limited in the passing game, but better at the running game is the least worst option because at least with him running the ball you have 10 blockers rather than 9?

Can, should and must there be an improvement regardless of the hand dealt? Of course...the running game vs Pitt was unacceptable under any circumstance. All I said is that I don't see any evidence in the article to support the notion that splitting carries (or not) is necessarily the problem (or the solution) or that McMillian is unequivocally the "most productive back".

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

so the data is incomplete. I think the article is advocating that if we didn't have this rotation which virtually nobody else employs we might be able to get better data to evaluate our RBs. I'm not ruling out the possibility that all of our RBs are terrible. But we can't know for sure if we don't give them consistent work. I don't think spot duty gives you a fair assessment of worth.

The terrible running game could be blamed on the OL too...and that's completely out of Shane's hands and irrelevant to the RB rotation. The difference is, that with the exception of the Pitt game, the OL has proven to be a serviceable unit that a team can run behind. We should have been able to run more against ECU. The OL opened up some holes but we just missed them. That's on the RBs IMO. Now is that because they're just generally not very good? Yeah, possibly. I'm finding it difficult to believe that a player who has spent 3-4 years in this offense at the RB position would struggle so mightily despite not being as physically gifted or talented as some of the elite RBs around CFB. Every team in the country can't have supremely athletic tailbacks but there are enough tailbacks out there that VT surely ought to be able to get one to build a running game around. Why can't we even do that?

Joel Smith



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Why do you throw out the Furman game? All of the backs ran against the same Furman team. Even taking out the 63-yard run by McMillian he finished that game with 7 YPC compared to Edmunds 4.6.

The data supports that McMillian is the bets back based on his highlight opportunity rate and what he does with those opportunities. Once you're 5 yards past the line the run is on you, not the hole created by the line. Travon is making the most yardage out of those opportunities.

What data shows that it worked well when VT played well? Furman is the only game this season that the team has exceeded the national average in YPC. The team is 86th in Rushing S&P+ despite the offensive line being 48th in opportunity rate (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaol), an indication that our backs aren't getting it done.

marcb2 | 10 years 9 months # ^

For the same reason I don't pay any attention to the scores that GT runs up on lesser competition -- or Alabama QB stats.

Some schemes and some players can look great against teams with lesser athletic ability but when the margin of error closes just a small amount, their advantage is negated considerably. It's no different than why you wouldn't use someone's college stats to analyze how good an NFL player is. Some players look great vs college competition but not so great once they get in the NFL (and vice versa).

The list of players who have looked great vs inferior competition -- but not so great vs better competition -- is lengthy and forgettable. By eliminating that list from your data set, you get a truer picture of how a player plays against his own weight class.

hokie07ME | 10 years 9 months # ^

I think the point is that all backs played against this inferior competition. So, while an inferior back might look good against furman, the quality backs should look just as good if not better. Is there a situation where a better back looks worse against crappy competition while a crappy back looks great?

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Is there a situation where a better back looks worse against crappy competition while a crappy back looks great?

IDK about RBs...but how bout UVA QBs?

marcb2 | 10 years 9 months # ^

At VT? I can't think of one off the top of my head. Maybe Chris Mangus vs Western Carolina a couple years ago? Or frankly Shai McKenzie last year vs W&M and WMU (as much as people love him -- he avg'd like 8 ypc vs those 2 teams and like 3.0 ypc in the other 3 games vs OSU, ECU, GT)? Who was the 4th guy behind Humes, Imoh and Hamilton...didn't he have a couple of nice games vs powder puffs?

I recall a bunch of pedestrian games by Kevin Jones, Brandon Ore, Ryan Williams, David Wilson, etc against FCS or Directional U level competition. However they probably got their 20 carries (and nobody else got more than a handful), so they still got their 80 or 90 yards and nobody else had big yardage.

It's entirely likely that a lesser back got more yards per carry though in some, if not most, of those games.

Choppin wood by the JUGS | 10 years 9 months # ^

so lets take out every RB's stats Vs Furman and this is what we have left to deal with.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

you might as well take out the data from the Purdue game too...since that can't be reliable date since they're bad/s

Choppin wood by the JUGS | 10 years 9 months # ^

lol.. it gets worse see below.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

at least it's looking more and more like Coleman is the feature back. 41% is better than 30%, so there's that.

Choppin wood by the JUGS | 10 years 9 months # ^

I don't know whether to cry or laugh.. you pick?

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

maniacal laughter is on order, I feel

Choppin wood by the JUGS | 10 years 9 months # ^

5 more hours wooo!!!!!!!!!!!

marcb2 | 10 years 9 months # ^

Purdue had the ball and chance to beat Michigan State last week....just sayin'. Just because VT beat 'em up doesn't mean that don't have a lot better talent than Furman.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

this is a perfect example of why we NEED a sarcasm font....Joe?

cds7c | 10 years 9 months # ^

Agreed, this data doesn't tell us we need to give one RB more carries anymore than it tells us that all our RBs suck. Which is a distinct possibility.

We are all trying to make a clear case that McMillian will just fix the RB situation if he gets 80% of the carries. If that's the case, let's assess the non-jet sweep carries to determine who is succeeding in a more traditional TB role. I would guess once you back out McMillians jet sweep touches, he is going to look as pedestrian as the rest of the backs.

That's not to say that McMillian shouldn't be the choice. But if this year has taught our fanbase anything, it's that we should have learned to pump the breaks on the hype train a wee bit.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

We are all trying to make a clear case that McMillian will just fix the RB situation

don't confuse my critique of Shane Beamer as lobbying for McMillian specifically. I don't necessarily think that he can fix our running game. I don't really care WHO the running back is, I just want to see a single back get every single carry for at least an entire series. I haven't seen that yet this year.

Ideally, we give one back, lets say it's Coleman since he's the starter, 2 whole entire series all by himself. See how he performs. That will give us better data since it won't be "luck-of-the-draw" in regards to how the OL blocks a given play. In theory, the OL should be able to properly block 50% of the plays on a single drive. We don't know which plays they will be, so in order to get a fair assessment of the backs we should leave them in for an entire series so they get reps with good blocking as well as poor blocking. Evaluate.

On the 3rd series insert the next back (Trey this time) and do the same thing. Let him play for 1 or 2 full series' assuming that 50% of the plays will be blocked correctly. That will give us a much better indication of who our best tailback is.

Joe Lanza

PUBLISHER



| 10 years 9 months # ^

There's almost two years of anecdotal evidence from the coaches and players in the post supporting the argument less running backs need to touch the ball.

Nevertheless any good statistical analysis would throw out an outlier and frankly not only was McMillian's run vs Furman an outlier, but any statistics vs an FCS team are an outlier. Take out the Furman game and Trey Edmunds is Tech's most productive option -- most yardage per carries and most explosive plays (and I'll bet most broken tackles and most yards after hit).

At this point I don't think you read the post.

In 2011 Wilson averaged 5.72 yards per carry when his long gain of 57 yards is removed from the equation. This season redshirt freshman Travon McMillian is averaging 5.16 yards an attempt when his season high rush of 63 isn't considered. Yet, he is just third-most in tailback attempts (32) behind J.C. Coleman (37 ATT, 3.2 YPC) and Trey Edmunds (36 ATT, 4.1 YPC).

Furthermore, when I calculated J.C.'s and Trey's yards per carry, I didn't toss their long gains, which skews the analysis in their favor.

I don't think it's valid to toss an entire game of data, given Tech's only played five games in 2015, and said I-AA team beat a I-A team on the road. If you want to do that though, McMillian averages 4.80 YPC, more than Coleman and Edmunds even when their data against Furman is considered.

McMillian is Tech's "most productive option"...most productive option at what?

Running the ball and gaining yards. The traditional stats above support the claim, and so do the advanced ones below.

Furthermore, McMillian is averaging 7.1 highlight yards per opportunity*. Edmunds and Coleman are averaging 6.0 and 1.4, respectively. McMillian also boasts a 50% opportunity rate*, the highest among Tech's tailbacks. Edmunds' opportunity rate is 27.8%, and Coleman's is 32.4%.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

marcb2 | 10 years 9 months # ^

It's not valid to toss a game because only five games have been played? Bad data is bad data. It doesn't matter what the sample size is.

I agree that you can't toss the Furman data for one player and not another.

What may not be valid is trying to draw conclusions from a limited sample size to begin with.

Choppin wood by the JUGS | 10 years 9 months # ^

the only issue is we're 5 games into the season but yet every week we have 3 rb's who all seem to be getting between 30-40% of the carries. It's not like we have 3 freshman RB's and we need to see who can do what. JC is a senior, Trey is a RJunior and Travone is a RFreshman

I just want to see us ride the hot hand at RB.. If 1 breaks a long run keep them in and run the same play or feed them the ball that drive until the D stops him or he needs a breather.

Pitt ran the same play twice, once for a 43 yard gain, the 2nd time it was for 25 and a TD.
ECU rode their QB who gashed us all afternoon
OSU fed the ball to Braxton as much as possible

yeah we have not have had a lot of chunk plays by our RB's for different reasons but when we do get going it would be nice to see us ride it

Joel Smith



| 10 years 9 months #

Here are the top teams in Rushing S&P+ and the percentage of RB carries going to the leading back:

1. Florida State - 59.5%
2. UL-Lafayette - 63.3%
3. Louisville - 61.5%
4. BYU - 45%
5. Georgia - 55.2%

86. Virginia Tech - 28.9%

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

For the sake of argument, is there any way you could provide the S&P+ and the percentage of RB carries going to the leading back for teams 10-15, 45-50, 80-90, and 115-119?

I have no idea how easy it is to pull those stats and if it's too much work I completely understand if you can't do it. I'm fully aware that everyone here has more important shi* to do than argue about what ails our running game.

Joel Smith



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I'd love to but the % carries was manual so it would take a really long time. My sense is that teams that have a clear back would cover the entire spectrum (some teams have no o-line and it doesn't matter that they've committed to one guy because no one will be successful) but I wouldn't anticipate evenly-split committees among the very best.

If the committee continues as is maybe we can do a more in-depth statistical analysis in the offseason by taking into account offensive line performance and things like that.

cds7c | 10 years 9 months # ^

Uga is an interesting comp because they go 3 deep and could easily split carries more. Also worth noting, they have started the last few years with multiple backs and adjusted carries as the talent has risen. Chubb earned more carries last year just like Gurley did before him. I'm
In full support of VT having more Gurley and Chubb. (Gurley and Marshall both almost picked VT)

Rocco



| 10 years 9 months # ^

IIRC last year there was a lot of complaining because they rotated their backs early and kept Gurley fresh. Their crowded backfield solved itself- Gurley took the job, then got suspended/hurt, and during that period Chubb took over.

Kville Hokies



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Yeah, but if you do have one of the top 10 running backs in the country you'd be stupid not to give them the ball a lot. Maybe our rotation would be better if we had less equality in talent than we have, but I am starting to doubt it.

HorseOnATreadmill



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Joel, how strong is the correlation between the two?

Joel Smith



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I don't have the data readily available on every team...I just manually pulled the top 5. None are close to a three-back committee.

marcb2 | 10 years 9 months # ^

1) Florida State - 5-0
2) UL-Lafayette - 1-3
3) Louisville - 2-3
4) BYU - 3-2
5) Georgia - 4-1

Without question, a limited data set. But certainly one you could test the hypothesis that limiting distribution of carries among RBs has a beneficial impact on a running game.

And what conclusion would one derive from any unbiased analysis of this data set?

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I see the point that you're trying to make. Here's the problem with it. Football is a copycat sport. If someone does something that works, everyone is going to try it. If it works for everyone it becomes a staple. But just because a proven method works for most, it's not guaranteed to work for everyone. Especially since you need a lot of things to fall into place for it to work. That being said, we're employing an unproven method and it's not working. I think we'd be better off sticking to a method that is tried and true. It might not yield the results that we want but based on the general rules at play in the game of football our odds of improving the running game are a lot better if we go with the method that everyone else has determined gives them the best chance to be successful.

If you buck the trend and try something new and different you're taking a risk. If it works you look like a genius. If it fails you look like an idiot. Right now, VT is trying something that bucks the trend, the general rule of thumb in college football that the running game is going to be most successful if you have a clear #1 tailback, by trying something different. It's not working and we look like morons. Let's get back to basics and try a method that everyone else in college football uses and see how that works for us. IF it works, Great! If it doesn't at least we'll compile some more reliable data along the way. Maybe we'll find out that our RBs are just really bad. If we operated our offense the same way a majority of college football teams operated their offense we would, at the very least, have something to compare directly to.

marcb2 | 10 years 9 months # ^

Using one back or multiple backs is neither new nor a trend -- in general or by VT.

Anybody want to guess what year this was (rushes-yards) for VT (and what the end result was)?

Player 1: 151-854
Player 2: 146-659
Player 3: 113-619
Player 4: 110-477

Or this one?:

Player 1: 158-720
Player 2: 130-605
Player 3: 136-511
Player 4: 75-336

Rocco



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Alabama's been able to split carries between two backs the last few years. It helps that they've had great lines who could open up running lanes for anyone.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

yeah but HOW are they splitting the carries? That's the key that I think a lot of people seem to be missing. I don't have an issue with splitting carries between 3 backs. I have a problem with the WAY that the carries are split. I think the general format should be to let the same RB play for an entire set of downs, at the least, but preferably for an entire series. The next back can then come in for the next series. The caveat here is that if RB1 breaks a long run or gets 6 carries for a bunch of hard earned 4 yard runs or something and he's tired, he may come out and let the other guy take over in the middle of a series. But that's the back's decision to come out, not the coach's. And even when backs change half way through a series, they should get more than 2 consecutive plays before being replaced again. VT doesn't do that. VT sends in a new back for each play call....who else does that?

Rocco



| 10 years 9 months # ^

Again, I'm not sure it's ever been proven that a RB needs a certain number of carries to get into a groove.

marcb2 | 10 years 8 months # ^

Because it's simply not true. There is no correlation between the number of carries and increasing effectiveness of the next carry.

HorseOnATreadmill



| 10 years 9 months #

Can someone that played football explain something to me because this whole discussion is confusing to me.

I keep hearing about how Shane is to blame for the running back rotation in games. Is Shane actually the one choosing which RB is playing on a given play?

Like, does Lefty call the play and then Shane picks which RB goes in to run said play?

Bragghokie



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I think as pointed out above it's something to the effect of the gameplan is given and position coaches are given the ability to who they think is the best player for that package. Also as pointed out above, if it was all Lefty, then why isn't Kline in the game more, or why haven't the WRs been rotated out at all?? I think this is because the position coaches have the ability to say who goes in what package based on what is needed. So Shane says "These plays are your package, these plays are your package.....etc etc." Burden and Steinspring obviously don't feel the same way about all the players they have as Shane does about his.

HorseOnATreadmill



| 10 years 9 months # ^

From my non-football playing life, I can't even imagine that the OC isn't calling for a specific player. I thought the role of the RB coach was to teach him not to fumble with things like boxing gloves on a stick

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months #

Maybe the best thing to happen will be for Shane to play just one back for an entire quarter of play and see what the results are. If he gives each back a quarter to prove what they can do and our running game hasn't improved or gets even worse than I'll get off my high-horse for a bit

Bragghokie



| 10 years 9 months # ^

At least an entire series. "Hey you're in till we punt, score or you get tired and let me know."

HokieeikoH | 10 years 9 months #

The savior search is upon us at tailback. We all know there is none in our stable. -----> That said, since there is no stand out, I think you pick one of those guys and give them the bulk of the carries tonight. It can't hurt. If that guy is Travon, cool. What is my point? There is no standout RB on this team, but giving the bulk of carries to one guy maaaay help get a rhythm going.

Bragghokie



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I think the only reason is that there is no standout is because no one has enough carries to stand out. Even so McMillian leads the Rbs with yards per carry yet somehow he's not given the chance to run more. But I agree, although I want to see McMillian get the bulk of the carries I would be satisfied with ANY back getting the bulk of the carries. (Of course if he produces nothing I'm sure we'll all say why didn't you play "insert name"?!? Unless of course that's McMillian. If McMillian gets nothing done in a game I think we'll all be questioning as to where to go)

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I'm in agreement with you guys in general. I want to make the point that it's important for the backs to get their carries in lots of consecutive plays and not 1 carry here and 1 carry there peppered throughout the game to the tune of 6 carries for 5 yards.

whitman387 | 10 years 9 months #

All the people saying Shane was hired "for recruiting" blows my mind. We knew when he was hired why he was hired...recruiting, youth, energy, etc were the excuses. Shane Beamer isn't just the Running Backs coach...he's also the Associate Head Coach...aka #2 on the totem pole. Daddy is his boss, his coworkers' boss, and daddy made him his coworkers' boss. Nepotism. Plain simple, unapologetic, and so pathetically masked as to make politicians look like evil geniuses.

VPIhokieME

'_'



| 10 years 9 months # ^

I do agree that the hiring was pure nepotism but Billy Hite was also the associate hc when he was RB coach soo...

Hokie Fireman

🚨 🚒 🔥



| 10 years 9 months # ^

You clearly don't understand what the associate head coach is.

Hokies Must Better Focus Distribution of Rushing Attempts

Virginia Tech's running back rotation has been scrutinized.

Comments