Our scoring offense (56) is ranked higher than our scoring defense (62).
There's still plenty of games left to affect the final rankings, but the last time scoring O outranked scoring D at the end of the season was 2010. (Scoring O 21, scoring D 26.)
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
How many thought we would be 3-5 with a top 60 Offense? Not this guy.
in fact, I'm fairly sure there were a lot of people saying that a top 60 offense would be enough for an ACCCG berth.
Most years, this would be enough.
I was one of those people....
The problem being we assumed that a top 60 offense would be associated with a top 10 defense. And that probably would have us in the ACC-CG.
that was my trivia team's name last week. we name ourselves exclusively with mean girls references.
YOU CAN'T SIT WITH US!
It's a jump to conclusions mat
Guilty.
Fire Foster!
Did I do this right?
it's funny cuz the word burn looks a lot like the word bum
#bathroomhumor
Who wouldn't want to watch the World Bum?
I think the reference was to the British use of the word "bum", which goes well with the TP meme.
It's my fault. I met him in May when he was in Hampton signing autographs and absorbed his powers.
Ah, so this is what it feels like to have a normal defense...
Yeah, think about that for a second. We're still in the top half of defenses.
That just shocked me....we still have a Top Half D and we are all complaining about how bad it is...#spoiledrotten
In a way, you're right, but top half out of 128 teams just means you're in the top 64. 84 teams are going to bowl games.
#standards.
Will there even be 84 teams with winning records? Or will they start sending teams to two bowls to fill spots.
Doesn't have to be a winning record, just 6 wins. You can count a win against an FCS opponent toward those six wins. And I remember the NCAA said a while back they would grant exemptions for 5-7 teams to fill open bowl spots if it ever came to that. It has not so far.
Seems to me they might have to dole out some waivers.
Basically what I meant is that we have an average D, no better no worse. And we think it's the worst thing ever haha.
Question of design. We're built to be a defense-oriented football team, and having an average defense is killing us. It would basically be like giving Baylor a 60th ranked offense.
One problem with that O stat is that the O has either been 100th or 20th. No in between. If it had been consistently 60th, VT probably wins the Pitt and ECU games (remember 14 of the 28 pts in that game were short field TDs) and maybe even the Miami and Duke games.
A very curvy road is still straight on average...
This is hard for me to follow.
Pitt is definitely on the offense. No question. No argument from me.
Miami is partially on Motley's 3 turnovers keeping us 11.1 points under our average, but also on the defense surrendering 30 to an offense that Clemson blanked a week later. Euqal opportunity failure. Better play by either squad could have made the difference there.
ECU? We were within 3.1 points of the mean. Saying if we had been 60th in every game it would made a difference, then citing one of the closest performances we've had to our mean, seems a little ill conceived.
Duke? You've gone off the deep end. We were almost a full standard deviation above the mean. At what point are you willing to shoulder the defense with a loss? Because if there's been a loss where the offense did everything it could to win, it was Duke.
Duke? Really? Were you watching the same game I was? They started their last 4 drives at our 25!!! /s
We had 375 yards in regulation and 24 points. More than the #1 scoring and #4 overall defense had given all year with ZERO turnovers. The offense had a bad second quarter but made up for it later. The defense was bad from the first snap for Duke to the end of the game.
EDIT: Sorry, just saw the /s
Well let's see...
Pitt - we agree
Miami - I said "maybe Miami". How is that different from what you are saying?
ECU - I said 14 of those points were essentially defense points. The 28 pt total masks how bad and one dimensional that offense was that day. If they play like a 28 pt per game offense, they win that game
Duke - Overtime points are an illusion - scoring a bunch of pts on possessions from the opposing 25 is not offense. Again if VT scores more than 24 in regulation, they win.
re: ECU, the offense still had to go and get those points...they weren't pick-6s. They could have easily floundered, three runs and a FG.
Would you discount those drives if they had been set up by a long kick or punt return?
Good grief...I said probably win the ECU game. I didn't say 100% dead certain, lock of the century.
And I still stand by the notion that the offense in that game was essentially gifted 14 early pts and the rest of the game showed that (much as I don't look at the 1st Miami score as a defensive score given up).
My original point was just that the statistic makes the VT offense seem average when in fact it has been anything but. Regardless of the number of points scored vs ECU, they played a lot more like the #100 scoring offense than #57 that day; if they had played like an average scoring offense, they "probably" win that game.
So just to be clear, are you claiming that a scoring drive should cover a minimum number of yards before the offense is credited with those points? Because you are certainly being dismissive of those short field touchdowns.
Reciprocally, should the offense be given extra credit for the touchdown scored against Duke after covering 95 yards in 20 plays? Are those points somehow worth more because we had to fight so hard to get them?
You seem to be moving the goal posts (ba dum ching) at your leisure to suit the argument you're trying to make at any given moment. Points scored by the offense are factored into scoring offense, whether the offense gets the ball on their own five yard line or the opponent's.
I completely get his point. Part of scoring is possessing the ball, wearing out the defense, giving your defense a rest, and altering field position. Against ECU our offense did none of those things and the 28 "points"
Is an illusion vs how poorly the offense actually played.
Except that we won TOP in that game 33:10 to 26:50.
I cracked up at this thread. I think it was that sad "laugh so you don't cry" laughter, but I was cracking up nonetheless.
Wow. Walt in that crawlspace realizing the money isn't there is an eerily accurate metaphor for this season.
Something you were counting on, and absolutely need, just isn't there.
Trying to think who would be Skyler in this metaphor.
Who is the biggest bitch a VT?
I know the numbers are there offensively, but not consistently. We need to never forget that our offense only got 100 yards on Pitt. I know Narduzzi is good, but that is absolutely unacceptable.
Let's not pretend for a second this is an ACCCG caliber offense. Maybe with Brewer back, but our offense failed to come up in many important situations this year, just like the defense.
To be fair, that hundred yards against Pitt was inexcusable. But it was also such aa monumental outlier that it is skewing the stats like a black hole. You can't throw that game out, because it happened. I get that. But its also a full 220 yards below our next lowest effort.
The Pitt game is the sole difference between us averaging the 385.5 yards per game that we're averaging, and instead averaging 426.3. If you want to counterbalance and throw out the upper outlier against Furman, were averaging 400.2. And that's actually a pretty good baseline for how we've done this season. We aren't really an up and down offense. We're usually good for 400+/-40 yards per game.
We're only inconsistent in the sense that we've had one extreme lower outlier against Pitt and one extreme upper outlier against Furman. Outside of those, we've been a pretty dependable offense.
Where does 400 rank?
A team averaging 400 yards per game would be 69th in the nation.
I got an idea. Put down the stats, rankings, and analytics for a moment. Take a deep breath, and repeat after me, "This is just not a very good football team right now."
It's that simple. We still love them (I know I do), but it is what it is.
but will it be a very good football team next year?
I say no.
I don't think our problem is scheme. I don't think it's having bad position coaches. In general I don't think it's that we have an overall lack of talent.
I think the problem is that we have a fundamental lack of fire, and I think that stems from having a coach in his 70s with medical problems.
I think we need a vein-popping, fire-breathing paradigm shift that will light a fire under the asses of players and coaches alike. I believe that our fundamental problem is that our stock response to the issues we face as a program is to sit down together and says, "Well, let's talk about it."
We need a coach who is going to make Bucky Hodges run steps until he pukes for quitting on a route against Duke. We need a coach who is going to make the seat under our DL coach very warm when a much-hyped DL gets dismantled my any QB who can run.
To be clear, I think we need to maintain a coaching philosophy that promotes a sense of family. But to right this ship, I think we need a head coach who understands sometimes you have to take Fredo on a fishing trip.
100% agree. It's a culture issue where there's lack of...fire....motivation....whatever. I feel like it's very obvious when we have a strong showing then can't follow it up. You might even call it resting on your laurels. Albeit small ones.
Or cases when the team seems to think that because the opponent is called JMU or ECU that they just need to show up, give a half assed effort and the other team should take a loss because we're Virginia Tech.
AMEN BRO. The thing that seems to be lost is that THE DEFENSE has CRAPPED the BED in KEY SITUATIONS repeatedly - when they HAVE to deliver, they have been a PAPER BAG (WET) -- zero shutdown capability. Think about it - Duke got their points EASILY whenever they needed them.
It's got nothing to do with coaching either - Bud is one of the best (recruiting aside) --- WE are NOT very good -- and this year WORSE on D than O -- it is a rare event, but without a doubt true.
A scoring offense that is ranked 56th while playing approx. half of the season without the guy who had a whole offseason to really learn it and execute it? I call that successful; how many other programs could realistically achieve that?
A scoring defense that is ranked 60th while playing the season without an All-American, shut down corner (who played hurt when he was out there) and a pre-season All-ACC pick at DE with broken bones in both hands? That's still pretty reasonable, though it's harder to swallow based on the expectations for the defense as a whole, especially the d-line.
Yeah, to be honest, I'm pretty impressed with the pass defense even in Kendall's absence. Freshmen have made freshmen mistakes, but by and large DBU is alive and well.
The front seven are one of the biggest disappointments we've had in years on either side of the ball.
I think the defensive tackles have been good, but Ken and Dadi have been so disappointing.
The starting DTs have been good, but where is this supposed amazing depth at the position?
Well, Marshall going down hurts that.
I have Notre Dame and BYU holding on line 2. Both Teams lost starting QB
Total Offense Rank
BYU 33
ND 17
Anybody watch that UNC game last night??
Our fondness for giving up the the long ball (Hi Duke) and their ability to make accurate downfield plays.
We're toast.
Go Hokies! Beat BC.
Go Hokies! Beat BC.
Keep the dream alive!
Arrrgh!
First half yesterday was going to be a huge spike in our offensive performance for the season, the turtle second half means we are going to go down in our averages.
It is what it is. Offensive production is as much a result of how you use your offense as it is of what your offense is capable of accomplishing. It won't show up in stats I'm tracking, but the TOP the offense had in the second half played a huge role in our win. Also, scoring 26 shouldn't drop our scoring offense that much. We'll see. I'm getting over my Halloween sugar coma, then I'll crunch the numbers.