After how our defensive line got pushed around all day against Miami, I got to thinking about how our defense has gotten progressively worse over the last few seasons and what the root cause may be. At a basic level, our defensive line seems woefully undersized. That led me to make this comparison in the Open Thread:
2006
DE Orion Martin 6'2" 250lbs
DT Barry Booker 6'4" 280lbs
DT Carlton Powell 6'2" 294 lbs
DE Chris Ellis 6'5" 260 lbs2015
DE Ken Ekanem 6'3" 248 lbs
DT Luther Maddy: 6'2" 283lbs
DT Corey Marshall: 6'2" 266lbs
DE Dadi Nicholas 6'3" 233lbsIn 2006 our average DE was 6'3.5" and 255lbs; today it's 6'3", but only 240.5 lbs. At the DT position we were 6'3" 287lbs; now the average is 6'2" and 274.5lbs. I understand that we are somewhat sacrificing size for speed, but take into account that Jason Worilds was 6'2" 262lbs when he played here. That's as big as Corey Marshall. Chris Ellis was bigger than Marshall and only slightly lighter. At some point you give up too much size, and I think we have hit that threshold. I am really eager to see what Tim Settle can do here, and honestly think that we should not have redshirted him. I wouldn't have been surprised to see him emerge as a starter at some point this season.
After that, I went digging through all of the media guides to compare the sizes of our rosters. This means there will be some inconsistency with what was actually on the field, but it was easier for me to go through the pre-season media guides than to try and sift through the rosters on each game.
First, we'll start out by showing some basic statistics of our defense over the last ten years:
As you can see, our defense has steadily been allowing more points per game every season. However, offenses have gotten better. The average offense from 2008 scored 26.92 points per game. In 2015 that number is 30.33, a little more than a field goal increase. From 2005-2009, the Virginia Tech defense gave up 14.46 points per game. Since that, they have allowed 20.48. Our PPG allowed increased by double the national PPG scored increased. Not good.
Yardage wise, there is a steady upward trend in all categories. However, the disconcerting thing is how quickly the Rushing Yards Allowed category is rising. Over the last two seasons we have been getting absolutely mauled on the ground. We also got gashed in 2010, but the Tyrod Taylor lead offense was enough to make up for it en route to an ACC Championship. We no longer have that luxury.
So what could be the cause of this? We all know that our defense has been slightly undersized, but they make up for it in speed and aggression. However, how much size can you lose before it starts to hurt you?
Honestly, I don't know that the heights really show that much. The scale of the graph exaggerates the height differences, but it is evident that our DTs are significantly shorter than they used to be. The more important factor is the weight. Weights across the board have fallen, but the average weights at DT and DE have plummeted. We have fallen about 10 lbs at DE and over 20 lbs at DT. While this is definitely an effort to get faster players in space to defend against the spread, I think we have sacrificed too much power.
As was said in the quote earlier, look at former defensive ends like Chris Ellis and Jason Worilds. These guys would be large enough to play at DT in Bud's defense now. Still, I would argue that despite being larger, these guys were as fast and explosive as any player we have at DE now. I really don't think you need to sacrifice that much size in order to get more mobility.
This is why I really would have loved for us to burn the redshirt on Settle and get him in the rotation, although that time has long passed. He has the size we so desperately need at DT, and the potential to be an explosive force on the line.
Still, there is the possibility that Bud wants to play bigger guys, but we just don't have them. Maybe it's a recruiting issue, maybe it's a strength and conditioning issue. I'm not sure. What I do know is that you used to never see a Virginia Tech defense getting pushed around like they did today.
Comments
^^ referring to the trends documented above, not to your excellent breakdown of those trends
Definitely food for thought.
I don't know if it's mere coincidence or if there really is a causal relationship, but it's gonna be fun to discuss.
Agreed. I just decided to throw out it there because our line has been getting abused this season. There have been many times where a QB or a RB has shrugged off a hit. Ekanem especially seems to have trouble wrapping up and finishing plays.
I wish we had the depth to go big or small depending on the opponent
High school players are getting bigger and stronger this means recruits are getting bigger as well. More teams are adopting a pro set offense vs the spread. VT getting smaller does not intuitively sound like a good thing. Our defensive scheme does allow us to recruit highly talented players that other teams won't look at because of their size. This has been the case for a long time. But you make a great point and the fact that we were "small" 10 years ago means that getting smaller still could be a major issue. I love the topic. I have been concerned with this very issue myself
This is a beautifully written piece. Simply perfect presentation.
Edit: Never mind. I missed the paragraph addressing the improvement in offenses overall on my first read.
Watching our defense get lit up this year I am getting more convinced by the week that our next head coach must come from the outside and if Bud goes elsewhere that might not be the worst thing in the world to happen.
I agree. I think this program needs fresh blood through-and-through. I'm honestly a little concerned about Beamer being retained (not as a coach, but some desk job) per his contract because I fear that will give the next coach a sense of operating very much in the shadow of Frank and I don't know if that is healthy.
This x1000. Morgan, what do you think?
What's even more troubling is what if CFB's future role in the Athletic Department keeps coaches we are after away from accepting the VT position?
Someone told me a while ago, never leave or stay at a job soley because of the boss. They come and go. If you want to leave for a better position but love working for your boss, generally you should consider still leaving or vice versa. The point is while day to day that guy may be a pain in the ass or make work easy, you have to keep perspective long term, and bosses quit, retire, transfer, get promoted, etc. and so are definitely not long term.
Somebody avoiding taking a job cuz Beamer's looking over his shoulder isn't a guy I want coaching anyhow. Man up and have a vision for the future, the future you want to make it. Embrace VT, including the Beamer legacy. The future coach can do his thing and doesn't need to be a Beamer Patsy.
Don't know of a lot of people who would take a job where the former job holder has the potential to interfere with your vision. Its one thing to have a boss who checks in from time to time, its another to have a rival that may potentially counter your vision if said rival doesn't agree with the direction the new hire is trying to take the football program.
Now I am not saying CFB would do this, what I am saying is that outside looking in, it could be perceived that way to a potential hire. He has the AD and Former Coach Beamer looking over his shoulder and second guessing him. Yea, thanks but no thanks.
*cough cough* Barry Alvarez *cough cough*
The negative potential is there, but i dont think it is some 800 gorilla that will deter all competent coaches from considering the job.
I think the risk of detering our "perfect fit" head coach from coming here due to Frank's presence is small, much smaller than the risk of just making a poor choice on the next hire. I think you're just looking for reasons to wring your hands if this is a major concern. Clearly there are bigger issues.
We have been undersized for years on both lines. It's the number 1 reason we could never get over the hump.
When we were churning out those 10 win seasons, was the time where we should have had enough recruiting power to get the bigger players on both lines. We never did, and it's the biggest blunder.
Things happen in strides. Our teams have never been able to beat the big games because we have always been so small. Whoever coaches the team in the future has to strive to get bigger players on the lines and transition to a scheme that does not resolve around speed and undersize.
Our coaches, all of them, got complacent. The offensive ones got shitcanned and now we are able to hold our own fit the most part offensively each week. The defensive coaches were propped up on a pedestal and now they are the glaring weakness of the program.
Our problems run deep. They will not be fixed until new blood is running the ship. Until then, this is the kind of results they have earned. DBU and Sacksburg look like sad jokes now.
Yes because our D turned it over 4times yesterday...
But created zero turnovers
I can understand your sentiment and don't want to argue against it except to defend in some way the defensive backfield out there yesterday. They are young and will come along, maybe not this year as sad as that seems, but they will get there.
True. We started 2 freshmen and rotated a 3rd one in.
No matter how much we love them and how they ball out every once in a while, sometimes they'll end up doing freshman things.
Nice breakdown. We have tried (and mostly failed) to recruit bigger d-linemen. I have long thought the moving of players "down" a position has hurt the recruiting in the front 7. Fast d-linemen sound great and can be against some teams (GT). Against others they just get pushed around.
I've seen a couple people mention the offensive line being undersized as well. While I'm not going to go through that unit like I did the defense (at least not at this time), here is how they stack up against a top ten offense:
Here are the numbers by height:
...and by weight:
The biggest difference is that we're about ten pounds light on our tackles, but that really shouldn't make that big of a difference. We're marginally worse than the average line out of that top ten. For comparison's sake, Wake Forest, who has the worst offense in the ACC, has a line with an average size of about 6-4 and 302 lbs. They have a LT at 290 and a RT at 280 though, which are both substantially below the average.
Still, the difference in the size of the Virginia Tech offensive line and those of top ten teams is almost negligible. At this point it seems likely that it all just come down to a lack of great coaching along that unit.
Searels has definitely improved the size of the OL over what it was for our predecessors. I believe at one point french referred to it as the "Hans-and-Frans-ification" of the line.
Also, I assume Nijman is pulling down our average weight at LT.
I think this falls back on recruiting. It seems like "we recruit smaller, faster guys to fit our scheme" is just code for "we can't recruit elite, prototypical sized guys like other major programs do."
Wiles has always put an emphasis on twitch when evaluating his linemen, but it seems like he's reached a point where that's all that matters to him now. It doesn't matter how fast off the snap your DL is of they lack the size and power to fight off blocks.
I've never thought Wiles was an elite DL coach. I understand Bud's one gap system isn't the easiest to recruit for in the front seven, but Wiles' knee jerk reaction is to take any player with prototypical size for their position and move them up a position. Maybe that worked in the late Nineties and early to mid Aughts. But it is failing now. How many times did we send seven on a blitz against Miami that resulted in no pressure because our front four weren't getting enough penetration to need a double team? Out DL is getting blocked into our blitzers because they aren't strong enough to tie up an O lineman.
I think it's time for a frank appraisal of all positions coaches, and I think some of our D coaches are failing to a larger extent than our O coaches. I like what Searels is doing on the line and love what Burden has accomplished in a few months with out receivers (we have a WR screen that works, guys!!!), but it seems like a lot of our D positions coaches aren't answering the bell.
I agree with almost everything you posted EXCEPT with Burden. I feel like Philips has not improved this season AND Edit: Asante has not stepped up. Overall, thus far, Zohan has NOT been an improvement over Moorhead.
*Sorry for the mixup. Was thinking of former pats CB Asante Samuel. wrong Asante. Still hungover. Corned whiskey. It'll really get after ya!
Who is Samuel?
Cam has sprung Travon on some runs around end. He has really embraced Burden's emphasis on blocking and contributing on plays on which he is not targeted.
Also, the numbers on Cam:
2014: 3.1 receptions per game, 12.5 ypc, 38.3 ypg
2015: 3.6 receptions per game, 12.0 yoc, 42.9 ypg
Phillips has essentially maintained his level of production, while being a BIG improvement in the blocking game. Phillips is basically THE reason we have a functional WR screen now.
As for Asante, Knowles, Newsome, Caleb, etc., I just think they're a known commodity at this point. AMo couldn't develop them in his two seasons, Zohn hasn't done anything to improve them in his eight months. But if they are better at blocking when they're on the field, they are contributing. Not sure if they are or not, I haven't paid any attention to their blocking.
Fair enough on the blocking better points and the commodity (though I felt and was hoping that Asante was gonna break out a little bit). But it feels like Cam was more of a factor in the receiving (which should be the primary for WRs) and scoring last season. Also, based on how the rest of the team is executing (lacktherof) the downfield blocking seems like more of a moot point.
Well, through seven games last year, Cam had 25 receptions for 308 yards and 2 TDs. This season through seven, he's got 25 receptions for 300 yards and 1 TD. Receptions are a push, he's regressed 2.6% in receiving yardage and found the end zone one fewer time. Basically Cam is exactly the same player he was last year. I honestly think it's more an issue of Ford having improved so much that a nearly identical performance by Cam looks worse in comparison.
I guess. We'll have to find out next season (if Zohn's even around for next season).
Is it really the size of the players though? This is pretty much the same DL that dropped sacks all over the place last year. It's true, we're not getting in the backfield as much. When we do, we whiff, especially Dadi. Maybe you're right. Maybe the coaches are not coaching / motivating, and this is the results.
On the offensive side, I think there are a few weak links in the line that are keeping us grounded. I think the line is definitely improved this year, but I look forward to some new people getting into the mix next year.
I am really surprised walker redshirted after Marshall went down. He was making some noise last year for a true freshman.
Unless I'm mistaken, the plan to redshirt Walker came before the Ohio State game, when Marshall was still healthy.
walker had an elbow injury all of fall camp.
Yeah was surprised he kept the shirt was what I was thinking but I did not know about the elbow injury. Too bad.
We only gave up 11 points per game in 2006? Man, those were the good old days.
Are their similar stats for our lb corps? I know they are pretty small usually closer to safety size especially for the whip
Hi Wittimus,
I like this analysis a lot. However, I do have one question for you: Has there been any trend in the caliber of offenses over the same timeframe?
By that I mean: I can see that we are allowing more yards and more points than ever before, and, assuming you used a regression approach to estimate the trend, is there a similar trend throughout college football as far as the number of yards being gained and the number of points being scored?
I'd be curious to see if the increase in yards and points being allowed by our defense is trending similarly to the national average, more slowly than the national average, or more quickly than the national average.
I wrote this almost verbatim above, the edited it out when I realized I'd skimmed over this part:
Yardage might be another topic worth discussing. He starts tracking in 2005. That season, there were three teams that averaged over 500 yards per game. Last season, there were eight. Yardage has gone up big, possibly by a larger percentage than scoring. It would stand to reason that as offenses get more aggressive, they gain a lot more yards but don't score proportionally as many more points because increased aggression leads to an uptick in turnovers.
For the sake of completion I also went through and added 2005, 2006, and 2007. The site I was using (http://www.cfbstats.com/) only went back to 2008, so I went to the NCAA's site to get the numbers before then. Here are the average offenses:
There is certainly an overall upward trend, with 2006 being an obvious exception. However, the average really doesn't start climbing until 2010.
Now for the more useful graph: the average scoring offense against the VT scoring defense.
It is clear that rate of increase is much higher in what we give up versus the national average. Either our defense has failed to adapt to the modern offense, or we have less talented players on defense, or a combination of the two (which I think is the most likely).
Thx Whittimus.
I wish I could give this all the legs. (You effort and presentation, not what the graph indicates.)
Yup, this is what I was looking for. Thanks, Wittimus. Also interesting to see that we are still well below the national average. Is it easy to scrape cfbstats for all team information in this manner?
The weights and heights were all grabbed from depth charts.
The other data was from cfbstats and was actually pretty easy to sort through. You can copy/paste the whole tables into Google Sheets and then copy out the one column you need, make a simple formula to average the whole lot, and there you go.
It's a really nice site.
I wonder if it's pounding the rock, or the big plays. If we took all those 20+ plays out, would it level out?
Great write-up. I was intrigued about VT, in perspective to the NCAA as a whole, so I quickly put together this graph, as a corollary to your first PPG graph.
The left axis is Def. ppg for the national median (blue) and VT (red). The right axis is national rank for which I plotted VT (green). I should note, that there were 120 FBS teams in '08 and 128 now in '15, thus the median rank is between 60-64. So, despite the average points going up, VT has mostly maintained a pretty good rank through 2014 with less-than-stellar years in 2010 and 2012. However, it's interesting to see the gap between VT and the median decrease steadily, suggesting that the difference between top ranked defenses and mediocre defenses is less.
This year, unfortunately, VT's defense has reached peak mediocrity. With Duke, BC, UVA and Wake left on the schedule, the rank will improve. But, I think it is time to start wondering if VT's defense will ever be elite again.
Most interesting thread, Wittimus. Thanks for all the work.
Not sure yet what to make of the data, but it is intriguing.
I agree, this is excellent analysis in the midst of a sea of spittle flying, stomping and arm waving pronouncements.
It was a very good read.
Bud's D is, as much as I hate to put it this way, like the GT offense. It is very different and hard to prepare for, and led to a lot of early success when first came to the ACC and played teams that have not seen it, but now the other teams have learned how to block and play against it. OSU spent an extra week this summer working on it. We freakin play ECU so damn often, and we are a big game for them, so they have spent the time to learn to play against it. The offensive game has changed a lot, with a lot more running QB's and short passing, which means going more nickel and taking a LB (whip) out as a run stopper, making us even lighter on D than the graphs indicate much of the time. Being small is compounded when you don't have good depth, as you get worn down playing too much every game. This is compounded against power run teams like Pitt and Miami. Injuries don't help. If we are going to rely on a quick line we have to be 2 deep with starters, and we are not that at the end position, which is killing our pass rush. Our line backers and DB's are young enough the opposition is getting a few extra sets of downs almost every possession off of mistakes, which compounds the size issues. Getting tired due to lack of size also leads to mental mistakes, and more missed tackles, positioning, or penalties. Making
these mistakes game after game wears the "chip" off the defense. However I still feel a lot of the recent decline of the D is due to a lack of ball control by the offense, keeping them on the field too long for an undersized unit.
Bud has shown his D can work against a variety of styles of offenses, but we need a power run game that can get first downs on the ground consistently to get undersized players some rest and better depth at end to make it work, and we don't have that. When the other team knows you have to, or are likely to, throw the ball they can plan for it, create turn overs or sacks, and compound the issues for our defense. We use a slow developing pass attack designed to go with a power run game without the power run game on offense. I believe if we fix that, Bud's D will get back to being dominant, instead of better than average.
"After how our defensive line got pushed around all day against Miami..."
The defensive line gave up
12499 yards on 39 attempts. 2.5 yards per carry. In what world is that getting "pushed around all day"?This seems like a headline and some grief rationalization in search of story.
It was 99 yards on 39 carries for 2.5, which is even better.
However, the big problem was that their line would have pushed ours 2-3 yards downfield after the snap before we could make contact. If our line doesn't get pushed off the ball, Miami gets less than 50 yards. We had five TFL, which was good, but only for a loss of 16 yards. However, if you look deeper you'll see a problem. Motu had 1 TFL for - 1 YD, Maddy had 2 TFL for -10 YD, Dadi had 1 TFL for -2 YD, Mihota had 0.5 TFL for -2 YD, and Nigel Williams had 0.5 TFL for -1 YD. In spite of Miami running a shotgun offense, most of our TFL's were just slightly behind the LOS, showing a lack of penetration. Furthermore, we only recorded one sack on the day, which is extremely low for us.
We just weren't getting a good push and disrupting the passing game, which let Kaaya carve us up.
Kayaa was getting rid of the ball in 2.5 seconds or less and he was still getting hit when releasing that fast.
Nobody is getting many sacks at that release speed.
Correct, 99 yards.
Regardless you're just doubling down on the rationalization searching for a way to grieve. You guys act as though the Miami doesn't have talented scholarship players trying to act as an opposing force and that every other play should be a TFL/sack and every possession should be a 3 and out. And if it isn't, there must be something inherently flawed with VT recruiting, schemes, practice habits, spring game scheduling, strength & conditioning training, and so on and so on.
Egbert has it right. It was a quick hitting pass game designed to take advantage of Miami's strengths and VT's weaknesses and minimize Miami's weaknesses and VT strengths. This game was lost on on-the-field mental errors, not on physical errors (except Motley's whiff pass) or physical/athletic dominance or getting outcoached by the other team.
The one thing that didn't happen is the defensive line got pushed around.