At Tuesday evening's media availability, I asked senior defensive tackle Corey Marshall about the mood in the struggling Hokies' locker room. Never afraid to speak his mind, the passionate Marshall launched into a fiery defense of Frank Beamer, the man he says he came to Virginia Tech to play for.
"I think guys are in good spirits. One thing I can say is we have a lot of competitors," said Marshall. "When you keep taking losses like that, it eats at your pride. A lot of these guys come from winning programs and we don't wanna be the group that has to have our head down and know that we let that (bowl) streak get away. That streak's older than me. We take a lot of pride in putting that together every year, making this a great program for Coach Beamer, (because) he takes a lot of shit, excuse my language, that he shouldn't have to take. We feel for him and we wanna win for him. I came here five years ago (because) that was the guy I wanted to play for. And I feel like that and I feel like he is fully capable of leading this program."
Bud Foster Fields Questions
Bryan Stinespring Talks Bucky Hodges
Travon McMillian's New Mentor
From Lee Suggs to Ryan Williams to David Wilson, Virginia Tech has had its fair share of star running backs over the years. One of them, now back in Blacksburg working as a special assistant to athletic director Whit Babcock, has taken an interest in the Hokies' newest starting tailback.
"Definitely K.J. (Kevin Jones)," said McMillian when asked if any former Hokie running backs have given him guidance. "He gives me advice about things and everything. It's good to have his perspective on things because we're kind of similar running style and everything. He definitely calls me up after every game telling me what I should have done in certain situations and stuff like that. He's helping me out since I'm new to the position and everything."
One of Jones' biggest pointers for McMillian? Stay low to the ground.
"He said that I'm an upright runner," said McMillian. "He wants me to get a little bit lower...get my pads a little bit lower or get my knees up. Just small things that I can work on."
And despite a menacing Boston College defense awaiting him in Chestnut Hill, McMillian's individual rushing goals remain unchanged.
"They have a great defense and everything, but I'm just gonna try to rush for 100 yards against them just like I do every week. That's my goal," said McMillian.
And after amassing 337 yards on the ground in his first three collegiate starts, who can really blame the freshman for his confidence? One thing is certain — McMillian won't be moving back to quarterback anytime soon.
"Not anymore," laughed McMillian. "I'm on to bigger and better things."
Bud Foster and Corey Marshall on Boston College
Boston College freshman quarterback Jeff Smith suffered a concussion against Louisville last weekend, and his status for Saturday is still uncertain. If he's unable to go, Foster expects to see redshirt freshman Troy Flutie — nephew of Boston College great Doug Flutie — start for the Eagles.
"I know they do a little more quarterback runs with (Smith) as opposed to the Flutie kid, not to say that Flutie can't do it," said Foster. "But Flutie can throw the football. He's got good mobility."
Regardless of who is under center for the Eagles, Foster knows that Boston College will formulate a game plan and stubbornly stick to it.
"That's what BC does a nice job of," said Foster. "They're gonna do what they do and hope you bust. Whatever that plan is, they're gonna work it and work it and work it and be consistent at it."
Marshall, sitting just a few paces away from his defensive coordinator, agreed.
"They're that three yards and a cloud of dust offense," said Marshall. "And the funny thing about them is they don't get discouraged in what they do. You can shut it down all game, but like Coach (Foster) said, they're waiting on that one play that you're not in your gap and they're gonna hit it and make you pay for it. As long as we're fundamentally sound and we wrap up, it's not a problem."
Marshall, hampered of late by nagging lower body injuries, seems confident he's close to 100%.
"I'm definitely getting back up there," said Marshall. "From the end of the Pitt game, I felt like I was kinda, that two week stretch I was out and missed games, I felt like I was a liability. I didn't wanna be in there and take away from what we were trying to do defensively. But now I'm starting to turn the corner and everything is starting to click a little more. Getting that quickness back and I'm able to stabilize more on that leg."
Bucky Hodges Happy to Have Michael Brewer Back
On Monday, Michael Brewer talked about how he anticipated his return helping Bucky Hodges make more noise on offense. Hodges sang a similar tune this evening.
"Definitely with Brewer in there, we're going more in the air," said Hodges. "Obviously Motley brings a threat of running the ball, but with Michael, he's just a quarterback. He's a game-changer. He knows how to manage the game. That's what I like most about him."
And while Hodges certainly has a solid connection with backup quarterback Brenden Motley, he feels his comfort level with Brewer is a little higher.
"Me and Michael, we click a whole lot," said Hodges. "We went through all of last season together, all of summer workouts and all of camp together. It's great just having him back."
Deon Clarke's Class Conflict
Deon Clarke, a senior approaching graduation, has missed the Hokies' Wednesday practice all season due to a class conflict that was unavoidable. But fellow linebacker Andrew Motuapuaka thinks the absence of Clarke at Wednesday practices is a blessing in disguise.
"I think it's good because it gives the younger guys, the younger backers, a chance to step up and get some reps because everyone's a play away from being that guy," said Motuapuaka. "...Deon, he's at the meetings, so it's not like he's really missing anything except for actual reps that we go through on Thursday anyways."
And rest assured, Clarke promises he is doing great in his much-discussed "Middle age and Adulthood" class.
"That's the one class they strive for me to do good," laughed Clarke. "If I'm missing practice, you better get an "A" in that class."
Jon McLaughlin — The Birthday Boy
Starting left tackle Jon McLaughlin turned 22 today, but don't expect to see the hulking lineman downing rails at TOTS Tuesday. His plans are a little more subdued.
"Get to put on the pads again, I guess," McLaughlin joked.
McLaughlin was serenaded with a rousing rendition of "Happy Birthday" after practice, but it sounded like the musical careers for the football team are less than promising.
"Athletes, I'm not saying they're singers," laughed McLaughlin.
Additional Quotes
Corey Marshall
ON HIS REHAB AND THE MEDICAL STAFF:
"I have rehab two times a day during all that and I was really in tune with Mike (Goforth) and the medical staff. They talk to me. That's the great thing about this team. They wanna know how you feel and I just let them know there was no way I was going to be productive if they put me out there. They could have shut it down, but they know the timespan on all those type of injuries, that one to four week period, and it was just one of those things. I wasn't ready.
ON SIMPLIFYING THE GAME PLAN FOR THE YOUNG SECONDARY:
"It's just that. Simplifying the plan a little bit so their mind's not tying up their feet.They can go be ballers when they trust what they do and they can react quick. I've seen those guys make crazy plays. You can see down the line, they're gonna be nasty. But you just gotta take care of them, build their confidence and they'll return the favor soon enough."
ON IF HE BELIEVES THE HOKIES CAN REACH A BOWL GAME:
"Of course I believe it. But I think we get tripped up looking at the finish line and not taking care of the process leading up to that. Put one foot in front of the other and take care of business. I feel like we have the talent obviously to execute. We've just been under-achieving and we need to correct that."
ON BEING A SENIOR LEADER:
"I think it's time to lead by example. We got about three or four games left. What are you saving it for? What are you not going out there and giving everything for? There's no turning back after this point. Just cherish these moments and make them great moments. We can write the end of this story. It doesn't have to play out the way it's kinda falling right now. We can correct these things these last couple games and get it right."
Deon Clarke
ON HIS LATE PASS INTERFERENCE AGAINST DUKE:
"The pass interference on the little wheel route, they love that play. Only reason Coach Foster got mad at me, just a little bit, because they ran that same play last year and that's when I got the interception. The whole week we were like 'alright, we're gonna get you another pick.' So they ran that same play and I read it just a little slower than what I did last year, so I didn't bite on it. I jumped up a little too early."
Andrew Motuapuaka
ON DUKE'S GAME WINNING PLAY:
"I kinda took a bad angle on it and I just lost my feet. Slipped and he just cut it up inside. He started to slow down and I should have started to break down as well, but he just hit it inside me. I thought I had some help in there as well, it was history from there. I really just thought it was my fault after I slipped. It was my play to make."
Jon McLaughlin
ON IF HIS SEASON HAS BEEN UP-AND-DOWN:
"Personally, yes, it's been up-and-down. Pitt game was definitely my worst game, but it's over. It's behind us. Now we got Boston College."
ON OFFENSIVE LINE PLAYING BETTER AFTER PITT:
"I feel like we all have as a group. Like I said, playing together. That was something we stressed last week. I feel like the offensive line played together as a group last week."
ON BOSTON COLLEGE:
"It's gonna be a fistfight like Coach (Searles) says every game. It's gonna be a fistfight. They got a great defense. I feel like we've got a great offensive line."
Travon McMillian
ON WAITING TO GAIN THE STARTING RUNNING BACK SPOT:
"I knew my time was eventually gonna come. I was waiting for that time. Once my number was called, once they committed to me and told me they were gonna give me more carries, I was ready."
ON IF HE'S SURPRISED AT HOW EARLY/QUICK HIS SUCCESS HAS COME:
"I've been doing this all my life. That's what I expect. I don't expect anything else different."
Comments
Having to hear that he needs to stay low from Kevin Jones? Good advice, but I really hope Jr has mentioned or had him work on it...
I have zero faith Shane has done anything to actually coach these guys like a D1 RB coach should. He had no experience with RBs coming in and doesn't seem to understand the position very well. Replacing Billy Hite with Shane was probably the worst move during the coaching changes.
I assume you mean post-Mike O'Cain?
Yes, I meant the most recent major shake up. I also wasn't saying Hite didn't need to be replaced but he should have been replaced by someone with RB experience and recruiting ability.
I don't disagree with this one bit, but at the time, almost all of us were very supportive of the move to pick up Shane for his recruiting skills.
In hindsight, I think the coaching changes after 2010/before 2012 were disastrous. We should've kept Coach Cav where he was instead of hiring Cornell (no disrespect to Cornell, but Cav was our best recruiter if I recall, and he WANTED to keep coaching). If we were to bring Shane in, it should have been as special teams coordinator, the position (as I understand it) where he was most successful. That still leaves room for four new offensive coaches (QB/OL/RB/WR, one of which also serves as OC, all of which are chosen by the OC).
I like the idea of a full time ST coach and think moving Shane there could work with his desire to rotate players. Also this would free up Frank to focus 100% on being the head coach. I would like to see a RB coach who has shown he knows how to get the most out of his backs, Shane hasn't been doing that.
Great point that I never considered. Not sure how many additional hours Frank spends on special teams, but who knows - if he spent that time visiting/communicating with recruits instead of focusing on specials teams, we might have been able to steal Nnadi or Sweat.
I understand that I have no visibility to the recruiting process, and it's not fair to just assume that we could have landed those guys if Frank had given them a couple more hours of attention each week, but his efforts could have been focused elsewhere.
I would love to have a runnings backs coach who has actually played the position before.
Sorry but you have 1 too many coaches.
LB/DC: Foster
DL: Wiles
DB: Gray
OLB/Whip: Cav
QB:
OL:
RB:
WR:
Full time ST coach makes 9.
You forgot TE. We've got 9 now.
If I'm not mistaken...
8 + TE's = 9
but...
9 - Cav = 8
ie. We're still at 88 + Brown = 9
Cav's replacement was Cornell Brown.
Well that's what my liberal arts degree gets me I guess
Yep I forgot TE.
So how do you coach TEs? They're not quite WRs and not quite OL.
Well, we've always used receiving tight ends, so basically you need someone who can work in conjunction with the OL coach to teach blocking scheme, but can also teach them as receivers to fit into the overall offensive scheme.
I'd imagine teams that use strictly blocking tight ends could probably lump them in with the OL coach.
I disagree with we've always used receiving TE's, Boone wasn't exactly a receiving TE. For most of the history before Loeffler, we used primarily blocking TE's. There is a reason why it has been so easy for Hodges to break the records.
Jeff King, Browning Wynn, Bob Slowikowksi, Sam Wheeler and Andre Smith disagree.
We've always used receiving tight ends. We just pass way more now than we used to.
Hell Cline and Malleck disagree.
I did say before Loeffler.
The four you list other than King have maybe 100 career catches combined. If you want to call them "receiving tights ends", knock yourself out. But they certainly weren't used as such.
Keep in mind, Andre Davis finished his career at VT with 103 career catches total. So having a group of TEs combine for 100 career catches doesn't mean they aren't receiving tight ends. It's all proportional to how much you pass as an offense, and we didn't pass much until the last few years.
Sparked my curiousity, so i decided to look it up
Jeff King - 58 Rec for 724 yds
Browning Wynn - 24 Rec 478 yds
Bob Slowikowski - 12 Rec 286 yds
Sam Wheeler - 30 Rec 440 yds
Andre Smith- 39 Rec 438 yds
for a grand total of 163 receptions and 2366 yds
Through 1.5 seasons of play Hodges now has 66 Rec for 875 yds
Malleck through 3.5 seasons has 56 rec for 567 yards
Cline has (1.5 years) 30 for 362
152 Rec for 1804 yds on the roster today with 5.5 years of eligibility left between the three
Jeff King is the only one of that group that can remotely be considered a "receiving TE" in college. And even he collected only 58 receptions for 724 yards and 11 TD over the course of four seasons.
Malleck is about on pace to match those #'s (except for TD's) with 1/3 a season to go, while Hodges has surpassed them in only 1.67 seasons.
Like I said, they were receiving tight ends, we just pass more now. The numbers support me on this.
Bryan Stinespring became TE coach in 2006. In those years:
2006: Receptions leader was David Clowney (34). Leading TE receiver Sam Wheeler (13). Leading TE had 38.2% the receptions as our leading receiver.
2007: Receptions leader Josh Morgan (46). TE leader Sam Wheeler (15). 32.6%. (Note Wheeler only played in 9 games, Morgan in 14.)
2008: Receptions leader Danny Coale (36). TE leader Greg Boone (22, did someone say he wasn't a receiving TE???). 61.1%
2009: Receptions leader Jarrett Boykin (40). TE leader Greg Boone (7). 17.5%.
2010: Receptions leader Jarrett Boykin (53). TE leader Andre Smith (20). 37.7%.
2011: Receptions leader Jarrett Boykin (61, daaaaayum). TE leader Chris Drager (15). 24.6%.
2012: Receptions leader Marcus Davis (51). TE leader Ryan Malleck (17). 33.3%.
2013: Receptions leader Willie Byrn (51). TE leader Kalvin Cline (26). 51.0%.
2014: Receptions leader Isaiah Ford (56). TE leader Bucky Hodges (45). 80.4%
Note on Bucky in '14: as the season progressed, he was used more and more in the slot, assuming more of the responsibilities of a wide receiver. The "traditional" TE that season, Ryan Malleck, caught 24 passes, which would equal 42.9%.
Since Stinespring took over as TE coach, it's pretty clear that the TE has accounted, on average, for a little more than 1/3 the receptions of the leading wide receiver. There's some variability season-over-season, of course, but one constant is that the TE position has always factored heavily into our passing game. So I stand by my original assertion.
35% of not much still does not make one a receiving TE. 1 or so catches a game is just enough to defenses honest; it's not a weapon.
Did anyone claim we had TEs that were weapons?
We had TEs who were targeted and who were expected to contribute a significant percentage of receptions in the passing game. That meets my threshold for calling a TE a receiving TE rather than a sixth offensive lineman.
35% of the primary receiver's receptions is a significant contribution in the passing game, regardless of how many receptions the leading WR had. There were years where or top WR had around 3 receptions a game, so having a TE who average 1.3 receptions per game is a little more than just keeping the defense honest.
There were seasons where our entire passing game was just keeping the defense honest.
If there were entire seasons where the passing game was just keeping defenses honest then quoting percentages of said passing game is pointless.
Again, no.
What matters is what proportion of the receptions in the passing game do your TEs contribute. If the percentage is significant, you utilize receiving tight ends in your passing scheme. And we always have.
And 100% of zero is...zero.
The percentage of catches relative to the leading pass catcher is an irrelevant statistic in this context. If a Georgia Tech TE is catching 60% of the catches that the leading receiver is catching is doesn't necessarily mean he's a receiving TE.
A comparison of our leading WR to our leading TE establishes the degree to which the TE is utilized in the overall passing game. I'm arguing that if our leading TE is putting up 35-40% of the receptions as our leading WR, on average, that's a strong indication that the TE position plays a key role in our passing tree. Please explain your rationale for saying it is irrelevant, beyond the fact that it undermines your assertion?
I can't decide if your Georgia Tech analogy is a non sequitur or a straw man fallacy. We obviously wouldn't be having this conversation if we ran the flexbone or the Wing-T. But we don't. Don't draw false parallels.
Yes, it does establish the degree to which a TE is utilized. It does not define whether one is a receiving TE. I've already explained why.
Coming in a very close 3rd in a race of slow runners still does not make you a fast runner.
What is your definition of a "receiving TE?" Thus far it seems you simply don't agree with IH's definition of one. So what qualifies, in your mind?
maybe a more accurate number to look at, rather than catches relative to the best wide receiver, would be what percentage of plays the TE is running a route rather than hanging back to block.
I really did not mean to kick this off when I said we haven't typically had receiving TE's. I was considering the low total numbers of catches our TE's normally have for the season before Loeffler.
That being said, I think the fair metric would be how many targets or completions the TE had compared to the total number of thrown passes or completions.
The only thing you kicked off was a conversation.
You're right that the TEs had lower numbers of receptions before Loeffler, but so did the WRs. Lefty is pretty pass happy compared to his predecessors. And he does use the TEs more than Stiney did...but how much of that is due to us only having two viable WRs right now?
Here's the deal on TE receptions as a percentage of passes completed. Let's take 2008. Greg Boone had 22 receptions. He accounted for 13.2% of the passes caught that season. So...what does that tell us? Is there going to be some threshold above which we call a TE a receiving tight end? What's the threshold? How is it derived? I avoided percentage of total receptions because it exists in a vacuum. We need a baseline we're looking for: Boone's 13.2% qualifies him as a receiving TE in 2008, but Andre Smith's 10.0% in 2010 relegated him to blocking TE status? It's just arbitrary.
The only valid method is comparing the TEs to what other people who caught passes did. It gives context to make a better judgement. So in making my comparison, I set the the highest standard I could: comparing the top TE to the top WR. Now, I could have calculated the top WR's percentage of total completions, and then the top TE's, and then compare them together, bit that's unnecessarily complicated. The proportion of their percentages of overall completions will bear a strong similarity to the proportion of their total receptions.
Back to 2008. Boone had 61.1% of the receptions that receiving leader Danny Coale had. If we derive Coale's percentage of total receptions, he caught 36 of the 167 completed passes that season, accounting for 21.6% of all receptions. The proportional value of Boone's 13.2% of total receptions to Coale's 21.6% is...0.611. It's the exact same value. Breaking it down into percentage of total receptions is a useless step.
I agree with you in spirit, but this is an uncompilable statistic. Nobody keeps records of when players run a route but aren't targeted. You couldn't even derive this number through film study, because you're going to miss some times that a tight end releases to the flat as a check down after throwing a chip block, simply by virtue of the camera angle changing to follow the QB and then the pass to whoever gets targeted. It just can't be done.
sounds like a lazy man excuse to me... /s
Guilty.
I can fix the definition problem. If the player lines up at tight end and can also catch the ball at least once, he is a tight end. Otherwise, he's a tackle. There, no further definitions needed.
1) A TE who -- as a receiver -- is an integral part of the offensive game plan and an offensive weapon and not just a safety valve/keep the D honest
2) A TE who -- as a receiver -- is an integral part of the opponent's defensive gameplan and is viewed as offensive weapon and not just a safety valve/keep the D honest.
3) A TE where receiving skills are valued as much or more than blocking skills
4) A TE who runs more than 1 or 2 basic route packages
5) A TE who is targeted as a first or second option in 3rd down or crucial game moments with the same confidence as a WR.
It's basically the same as a receiving RB.
Other than Jeff King and the TEs under Loeffler, I've never gotten the sense that any of the above were true for the VT TEs Illinois Hokie mentioned. I think Chris Drager and John Kinzer were capable of eventually being "receiving TEs" by my definition, but a combo of the offense not being designed for a receiving TE and other "issues" (injuries, position changes) prevented that from happening.
Well, I think then here ends the discourse. I think you've set an unattainable burden of proof.
I have no idea what statistical metric you would consider valid to measure 1 and 2, or what threshold within that metric would need to be met.
3 is a purely subjective metric, and I have no idea on whose opinion your are basing itz, be it fan, coach or someone else.
4 requires access to the playbook and passing tree, which I don't have.
I'd imagine 5 might be gleaned through analyzing how many third down conversions a TE is credited with, in proportion to the number of passes he received, but I have no idea where to find third down conversions credited by receiver.
In general, your definition of a receiving tight end seems similar to Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography: you know it when you see it. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's also no need discussing it further, because your definition isn't grounded in empirical statistics. I don't think I could post any combination of stats that would sway you.
Good grief it's a subjective term. You can't define by a single statistic...especially one as narrow as % of passes caught vs the leading receiver.
Nevertheless, when you find a quote from an opposing coach or player talking (or even VT coaches) about how Bob Slowikowski or Sam Wheeler present a challenge for the pass defense, count 'em up. Then count up the quotes for guys like King or Hodges or Malleck. There's your measure that combines objective with subjective.
Your definition of a receiving TE is a stretch. A regular, or balanced TE is going to be part of the passing game. From that baseline you can go toward blocking (Redman) or receiving (Hodges). Malleck and King are both very good Balanced TE's.
Also your metric for determining "significant percentage of receptions" is a bit odd. Why not just straight % of catches made by a TE (or TE's as a group) instead of this silly % of the #1 receivers catches? If you have 3 really good WR and a balanced TE, the TE may see 50% of the catches of the #1 WR while only being 14% overall. Meanwhile if you have one dominant WR that really out paces the rest of the team, your highly involved TE can look to be un-involved.
A) 52 + 49 + 49 + (TE) 25 = 175 %#1 = 50% %overall = 14%
B) 100 + 25+ 25 + (TE) 25 = 175 %#1 = 25% %overall = 14%
I'm curious why you think the definition I'm using of a receiving tight end is a stretch. Also, I'm not really sure what you mean when you say a "balanced tight end." I think perhaps what you're calling a balanced tight end is what I'm calling a receiving tight end, and perhaps your threshold for a "receiving tight end" is a wide receiver pretending to be a tight end, like Gronk or what we're grooming Bucky to be. Tight ends will universally be used as blockers. It's the nature of the position. If they are also used as targets in the passing game, I call them receiving tight ends. You can call them balanced tight ends, that's fine. We're meaning the same thing. I've been pretty clear on what my definition of a receiving right end is. I think having this weird third category of a "balanced" tight end is convoluted, but as long as we realize we mean the same thing, you can call them whatever you want.
I'd think the idea behind a proportion of top WR production to top TE production would be pretty intuitive. We can certainly divide each receivers receptions into a percentage of the QB's total completions, and a few things will be obviously true. The WRs will account for a higher overall percentage of completions than the TEs simply by virtue of there typically being 3+ WRs vs 1 receiving (or balanced, if you prefer) tight end. But the proportion of the top WRs overall contribution to the total receptions vs the top TE's would be the same as the proportions I listed above.
Rather than confusing the issue with extraneous unnecessary stats, perhaps it would be better to look at the proportion of the top TE's receptions vs the second and third receivers'. If we're targeting our TE more than our third WR (in seasons unlike this one, when we actually had a third WR) it would definitely establish the function of the TE as a core component of our passing game. Then again, I think that's obvious at this point.
"Yep forgot TEs. So how do you coach TEs? They're not quite WRs and not quite OL" (and not quite QBs and not quite DEs....)
They're athlete's or ATH's
I thought this was the case too, but it appears I was mistaken...
I checked out coaching rosters for USCe 2010 (Shane's last year at USCe) and OSU 2014 (random pick). Both teams had at least 10 staff members (HC, Coordinators, and position coaches). Then I googled how many coaches a team is allowed to have - this article from 2010 says 1 Head coach, 9 assistants and 2 GA's.
Couldn't find anything on the NCAA website, but I didn't try too hard. I always thought only 9 coaches were allowed (including HC), but maybe only 9 are allowed to actively recruit? I don't know.
Gee, I seem to remember that the peanut gallery consensus was that Cav's old school approach to recruiting and with recruits was no longer applicable in the new school environment and that Hite was a total liability when it came to recruiting. The peanut gallery generally felt that Brown's Super Bowl ring and Beamer's recruiting acumen and SEC experience were just the ticket to take the program to new heights.
Funny how perceptions change and the grass isn't always greener on the other side...be careful what you wish for because you might just get what you deserve.
I don't recall anyone criticizing Cav's recruiting... If I recall (and correct me if I'm mistaken) he was acting inappropriate at donor/fundraising events (too frequently swearing) and continued this practice after being reprimanded. As a result, he was slowly phased off the team against his will.
Again, I never heard this, I just thought Hite had a long career and wanted to retire. Again, correct me if I am mistaken.I was correctedI was part of this peanut gallery at the time. Cornell has done well recruiting, but, from what I understand, not as well as coach Cav. Shane Beamer has recruited ok, but his on the field coaching has been suspect at best.
This wasn't really a 'grass isn't always greener on the other side' issue - this is an example of poor hiring/interviewing practices (specifically in Shane's case). Was he even interviewed? Did anyone test his ability to coach tailbacks? As fans, we can't do anything but trust that our coaches properly vet any new hire. It is now evident that, in Shane's case our coaches failed to do so.
Regarding Hite, the #sources I know of basically say he had checked out entirely with respect to recruiting for the last several years of his tenure. He didn't want to go on the road at all (and basically just didn't) and let the recruits try to contact him rather than the other way around. Given the drop-off in RB talent we saw right after he left, it makes sense.
If your source is Hite himself, you're correct. I remember reading where he said that he didn't enjoy recruiting. He didn't like the deception. He didn't like feeling like he had to wine and dine recruits. He was old school and just wanted an open, honest, and respectful process and that's not how the game was played. And so he just got frustrated with it and cared less and less.
Makes sense. I knew some people in and around the team at that time and that's what they said. Billy was an open guy, so now that you mention it, I do seem to recall even he said those things and he probably said the same things to the people I knew. Little too old school for the modern game.
I remember the other way. I don't recall him after having problems at Hokie Club Recruiting events. In fact, Cav was the highlight of the show because he was brutally honest and wasn't afraid to share why a recruit didn't come to VT or stories on how VT landed so and so. I used to attend functions just to hear him talk and tell the real story.
The problem I heard with Cav was that he was also brutally honest to recruits and didn't mind telling them they weren't as good as the recruiting websites were saying. And, he wasn't afraid to tell the mom's, dad's, handlers, etc. the same thing. So some of the higher rated VA recruits were turned off on him because he told them exactly how he felt and they weren't used to it and pissed off some mom's along the way who only wanted positive things said about their sons.
Cav was getting older, but unlike Billy Hite, he loved recruiting and spending the hours calling and driving in his car. He also was one heck of a coach. Just a couple of years before he left, I made the point that he was probably our best overall coach when you factored in his recruiting ability and his coaching ability.
Unfortunately, we felt the need for our coaching staff to get younger and Cav was let go. Cornell Brown the player was great, but Cornell Brown the coach is so far behind Cav. In retrospect it was a very bad decision to prematurely retire Cav and I really miss attending his recruiting functions.
Your memory of Cavanaugh is a bit of revisionist history. Many thought the recruiting game was passing him by and his direct style was no longer a fit in the new game. It was felt he was being surpassed by younger guys -- in particular Mike London -- who were more adept in the working the just developing social media channels and the new grassroots organizations that influenced recruit decisions.
I'm not saying it was an accurate (or inaccurate) perception. But it was a common perception among the chattering types.
And don't forget -- those 2010-2011 recruiting classes that many lament as the catalyst for the VT downfall? Who was the recruiting coordinator for those classes?
As for Shane Beamer -- as always, it's amazing how talented players can amke a coach look good. He was fine with David Wilson and was fine with frosh Trey Edmunds, Marshawn Williams and Shai McKenzie when they were healthy -- and now with a r-Fr converted QB Travon McMillion. And I assure you, if he had Kevin Jones or Less Suggs or Ryan Williams or Brandon Ore or Darren Evans, those guys would have still looked good.
Is it really shocking that 5'6" JCC struggles at times or that Beamer was unable to turn Tony Gregory, Martin Scales, Chris Mangus, Jerome Wright, Michael Holmes, Joel Caleb, et al into Eric Dickerson?
I'll bet you that young Beamer will have no problem getting a job elsewhere if/when Frank leaves. Even at a place that has superb "hiring/interviewing practices"...
IMO the big losses with Cav wasn't recruiting, but rather talent evaluation of prospects that fit our system (especially defensively) and coaching/development. His recruiting was slipping
Still don't know why Shane, with his experience on defense at SC, wasn't hired to replace Cav, and another proven recruiter / offensive minded coach hired to coach RB. I guess they gambled on Brown becoming a dynamo recruiter but at this point he's not that much better than Hite was.
Maybe, but the recruiting game has changed so much in just the last 5-7 yrs. With camps, social media, and highlight film on the web for practically every player, it's pretty hard to beat the bushes for a diamond in the rough anymore.
My guess is that it isn't so much that talent evaluation has dropped off, but that there are fewer unknown diamonds in the rough.
First of all, Trey has only had three 75+ yard games in 3 years. One of those was against Marshal, another was against UVA. Against Alabama, 1 run doubled his ypc. Marshawn and Shai have had very limited careers so far. It's hardly fair to say these guys make Shane look good, and I would not mention these guys in the same breath as Wilson (yet - subject to change for Marshawn, Shai and Trevon).
It took Shane 5(?) games to name McMillion (clearly the best back) the starter and feature back. There is some debate as to who is responsible for this decision, but most signs point to Shane. This back, who is performing very well, is getting his advice from someone who, albeit very qualified, is not even on our coaching staff. Does not make Shane look good.
These guys weren't expected to be Eric Dickerson, but I did expect more from them. In three years we saw little improvement from any of these players, except for Scales, who was under utilized IMO. And that's the problem - we saw no improvement.
You're missing the point. The guys he's had with talent have been mostly injured (even JCC was injured much of his Soph Yr) or green. For the most part, he's had to use either freshman or 3rd string talent since David Wilson left. All behind a pretty bad offensive line until this year.
I understand that sports is a results driven business, but when I also look a little deeper when diagnosing the issue. You say you look for improvement, but improvement from what? And to what?
And BTW, Trey Edmunds has only had 4 games where he got more than 15 carries as well. And only ONE since the week 4 of his freshman season. Injuries have really taken a toll on him. When healthy he produced as a freshman. He's still averaging 4 ypc this year and probably half of his carries have been in short yardage/goal line situations. If anyone has a complaint about how he's been used, I think it's Edmunds.
LargelySomewhat Shane's fault, somewhat due to injuries.Improvement in vision really. There have been many threads suggesting that this is the best run blocking offensive line we've had in sometime, but yet Trevon is the only back who has been able to take advantage of it.
I understand it's tough to grade a running back coach, especially given our injuries and our OL play over the years. That being said, what makes you believe that Shane is qualified to be an ACC caliber RB coach?
I don't really remember any running back in VT history that was coached to be good, especially when it comes to vision. They either are or aren't good at running. Typically it's blocking that causes redshirts. I've also seen backs get coached into being better catchers out of the backfield. But typically, the running ability only changes proportionate to the strength and conditioning of the athlete.
Film study. A coach pointing out situations on the field and how/when to make cuts depending on what is given is a sign of coaching vision.
Not at all true. Obviously, if they get a scholarship at VT, they have some natural talent, but still much to learn.
Easiest example of vision improvement (not from VT, but doesn't matter) is Le'veon Bell. Dude will wait in the backfield for 15 minutes if that's how long it takes for a hole to open. He did not have that kind of patience when he first set foot on MSU. Years of practice, coaching and study.
JCC has gotten tremendously stronger (set a front squat record!) but I have not seen much on the field improvement.
My point is that every great running back VT has had was starter quality as soon as they were able to pick up a blitz. There is progression with coaching, film study, and conditioning, but vision and skill is mostly God given. Same is true for return men.
IIRC, Billy Hite said you can't teach vision. You teach them all of the other stuff and stay out of the way. And don't forget, Billy Hite had his share of Jahre Cheesman's.
I assure you that if Shane Beamer was coaching Ryan Williams, his vision would be no different.
I would have to disagree completely.
Shane's not the reason we're sucking this year. Sure his rotation doesn't help, but O'Cain was bad for so many reasons, and our recruiting has been lackluster for awhile (to put it mildly). We seem to be raging on Shane since that's the easiest option for us right now, but if you look closely at our performances - the reason we've lost so many games this year hasn't really been on the O, but because of our D (or lack of it).
I'm not raging on him. I realize he's not the one causing us to lose most games. But he's not helping. I didn't like stinespring as an oc or newsome as an ol coach when we had 11 win seasons. It doesn't invalidate my thoughts on him being over his head though.
Beamer being fine with substandard performance just because it wasn't affecting wins/losses yet is how we got where we are
This is silly. It's not like we've had a freshman back breakout almost every year he's been here. Or had a recent quarterback transfer play like a legit feature back. Or had a 4th stringer run for 100+ yards 4 games in a row. I get that you're frustrated, and the rotation obviously needed to be fixed, but there's just not evidence to support making him a scapegoat.
Rotation has been fixed. I think it's more along the lines of "don't break it again"
Let's not get carried away. Please remember Hite wouldn't recruit and he was blessed with several natural talents at RB. There was improvement with Lee Suggs and Kevin Jones under Hite but Ryan Williams was arguably a better running back when he started then when he left. Also, I will guarantee you, that McMillian wouldn't be playing right now under Hite, because he RARELY played underclassmen that he didn't feel were "ready" in all phases of the game. Any suggestion that hiring O'Cain and/or Newsome didn't have a greater negative impact than bringing SB on staff should be questioned.
He went from a QB to the starting RB in a season and the coach has nothing to do with it. Got it.
Of course Beamer's had him work on it. I could see it from day 1 -- and little Beamer's forgotten more than I'll ever know about football. Just because VT's lost a couple of competitive games doesn't mean that the coaching staff is suddenly blind...
I love hearing Marshall defend his head coach like that. We might be down, but at least we haven't disintegrated to the point that the locker room is lost.
That was far and away the most coherent I've ever heard Bryan Stinespring sound.
Agreed, which is why I found it so humorous that as I was laying in bed watching that last night my wife rolled over and said, "which coach is that? He's sounds ridiculous..."
Corey Marshall is easily the best interview on the team. The guy gets it. He doesn't beat around the bush, he just shoots it straight. And it's impossible to not love his passion. Very impressed with how far he has come since he arrived on campus.
"I kinda took a bad angle on it..."
Rinse and repeat.
MasonJoey, good get on the Marshall quote. Andy even used your quote and credited you of course. Good to see the relationship still exists on a positive level. Great question though, Cory doesn't need much to get him rolling and I think you hit the right note.Edit: Sorry Joey I credited Mason. Posting at 2 in the morning will get after ya.
Great reporting, fuck AB and his you guys are not real reporters bs. You are getting to stories and lines, I like what you are doing and love the write-ups. Glad to see the senior leadership still has Beamers back, that gives me a slight bit of hope for the rest of the season.
uhh..maybe I read into it wrong, but I think AB terminated his relationship with TKP because he realized they are competition. That, to me at least, is a concession of sorts that TKP is a legitimate enough reporting organization to be deemed a threat. If anything, I think AB implied that the TKP staff are in fact competent reporters.
while I disagree with the vitriol towards Andy, Jander does have a point.
Per Joe's explanation of the breakup:
Any chance that this was true, and that since this comment TKP reporters have become more involved?
There's no need to rehash this all over again. Andy and I remain friendly and professional.
I noted that Bitter referenced your guy (and added a link to the TKP) in his article yesterday.
Sounds like a blood feud to me...
There may be some confusion here:
Moore is a CB and is indeed out for the season. Jeff Smith is the starting QB who is probably out with a concussion. Smith won't practice this week but could be ready to go by Saturday. Thus, the Flutie discussion. Flutie is the backup (3rd string behind Wade, who broke his leg vs. FSU)
It's been updated to read more clear.
Bud referred to Jeff Smith as number five in his quote, and when I went to the Boston College roster, Kamrin Moore was the first (and only) number five I saw.
Ironically, both hurt last week.
Since being fundamentally sound hasn't been our forte this year, I'm going to go ahead and say they're going to bust a few big runs on us easily.
IMO if Corey Marshall wants to defend Frank then him and the other seniors/experienced guys on the team need to step up and show some leadership/heart. It looks like no one out there has any.
And Andy Bitter actually mentioned this article in his post on RT.
It's funny I have noticed a lot lately that AB will refer to what everybody on the "message boards" are saying.
AB mentioned message board before he stopped posting his work on TKP. I don't think that's necessarily a new thing. I don't get all this negativity towards Andy. I think he realized that TKP was becoming a competitive news outlet and he needed to cut ties for his own well being. It may have even been a directive from his superior, for all we know.
I think he's trying to maintain an amicable relationship with TKP staff despite the fact they are sharing the same information with roughly the same audience. If I'm not mistaken (and please, Joey or anybody else on staff correct me if I'm wrong here) the difference is that Andy does this for a living and most of TKP staff have other means of income. For most of TKP this is a labor of love covering a university many of us attended or identify with strongly. For Andy this is a job to keep clothes on his back and a roof over his head.
Oh no I didn't mean anything by that. I just always thought it was humorous since we all know what "message boards" he is talking about. I wasn't trying to imply that he was being condescending or anything. Personally I have no negativity toward AB at all and I still read everything he writes just like I do with TKP.
understood. You know how stuff translates on the interwebz. I still think there is some negativity towards AB from some TKPers..not you
Makes sense.....his job requires that he have a pulse on what the fans are clamoring about, so reading message boards such as TKP and all the other (obviously inferior) ones seems like it would be part of his job requirements
Loving how confident Travon sounds. Still amazes me that he came in having never played RB in high school given how naturally he fits in the backfield.
Imagine if he had a good running backs coach /s
Looks like his RB coach is Kevin Jones /s
Remove /s. I think you're right...
Maybe Corey should worry more about defending the A-gap instead of Beamer /s #rimshot
to be fair when he's been in there and not hurt he's been pretty disruptive. I mean what was it the first play of the game where he was in the backfield and got taken out by deon Clarke?