The Boston College film review has been difficult to write, and pushed back, in the wake of the announcement that Frank Beamer would retire at the end of this season. Virginia Tech's victory over Boston College was far from perfect, but it showed the will of Beamer's student athletes to win still burns brightly. Given the devastating loss against Duke, rumors about the program's future, and the potential to overlook BC given the woeful state of the Eagles' offense this season, the 26-10 win was a testament that this team has not quit on Beamer.
At the same time, the defensive personnel and scheme weaknesses that I have detailed over the past few weeks provided BC enough of a window to stay in the football game. The Eagles burned a redshirt on run-first quarterback John Fadule, and he had success on the same quarterback lead and counter lead plays that have tormented the Hokies all season.
A review of the film showed tremendous effort, improved ability to shed blocks, and better pursuit by Tech's defensive front-seven. Bud Foster made adjustments in scheme as well. Early in the football game, BC relied heavily on tailback runs as Troy Flutie manned the quarterback spot. Four of the six plays run with Flutie at the helm were inside runs by Eagle tailbacks, which netted three yards. This put Flutie in third-and-long situations. He could not find windows to beat the Hokies' secondary downfield.
With quarterback a question mark, Eagles coach Steve Addazio went to his extra tight end jumbo sets early in the game. In years past, those extra tight end looks put tremendous pressure on Hokie alley players. The Hokies' rovers and free safeties were forced to fit time and time again around the line of scrimmage. After the wear and tear of a long game, they would fit incorrectly and the Eagles would pop a game-breaking run.
Foster bulked up by using an extra whip linebacker. Anthony Shegog would enter the game in place of a corner and align as an outside linebacker to the field side. Ronny Vandyke would play a stand up nine technique on the edge to the field side. To the boundary, Deon Clarke would align as a nine technique on the edge. Rover Desmond Frye would play as an outside linebacker. Andrew Motuapuaka would man the middle, with Chuck Clark as a deep center field safety. Up front, the Hokies would use a traditional four man front. The boundary defensive end played a five technique (inside shoulder of the tackle.) The boundary defensive tackle would play a one technique. The field defensive tackle would play a three technique. The field defensive end played a seven technique (outside shoulder of the offensive tackle.
This put nine Hokie defenders in the box. Numbers, coupled with a significant improvement in shedding blocks, completely shut down Boston College's power running game. On this play, the Hokies use this specialty whip package against a three tight end set. The Eagles run a sprint draw.
Boston College wants to drive the Hokie interior linemen to the outside and up the field and isolate their fullback on Motuapuaka. The Hokies' defensive line appears to have a predetermined slant to the right called. Luther Maddy slants away from a double team, and Dadi Nicolas rips hard through the right tackle's inside shoulder to make the play. The big key here is that Nicolas finishes his stunt through the hole. Far too often he has stepped into his gap fit and then allowed himself to be driven inside. The second key is hats around the football. Nicolas makes the solo tackle, and Frye, Maddy, and Baron are all around the football. Pursuit has not been a strength of this defense in 2015. Against BC, the Hokies were gang-tackling much more often than I saw in some prior games.
On the next play, BC runs power from a three tight end set. The Eagles have good initial blocks and movement to form a hole right up the middle.
Watch both Hokie defensive ends. The Eagles attempt to draw Nicolas up field. Instead, he reads the play, sheds the block, and pursues to the inside. To the bottom of the screen, Ken Ekanem actually is slanting away from the ball carrier at the snap. He fits his gap, identifies that the football is going back to the inside, sheds his block and slides back to the inside to assist on the tackle. It is a good thing too. Motuapuaka, Clark, and Edmunds all badly overrun the play to the bottom of the screen. If the BC tailback pops through that hole, the only thing to stop him from scoring a touchdown is Desmond Frye chasing him down from behind. It is worth noting that the officials miss a vicious chop block on Luther Maddy. Maddy is engaged with the center, and the left guard (#64) cuts him. This is a dangerous play and was not whistled for a penalty.
After two straight 3 and outs, Addazio pulled the plug on Flutie and started using more spread looks with Fadule in the game. From a one tight end, three wide receiver shotgun formation, Foster responded, as he has against that personnel and formation all season, with the Bear front. Not surprisingly, the Eagles used the same quarterback counter play that has tortured the Hokies all season.
Tech's three down d-linemen key the first step of the down block and slant to the left of your screen. If the quarterback hands the ball off, the Hokies are in great position to make the play. If the quarterback keeps, the slant effectively takes the Hokies three best run defenders out of the play. Nicolas gets washed inside. Clarke gets too far up field and is kicked out by the pulling guard. The pulling tackle leads up to seal Motuapuaka to the inside. Desmond Frye takes himself out of the play by getting sucked in on the tailback fake, and Chuck Clark takes an awful angle to come over and support. This play has broken the back of the Hokies time and time again this season. It was frustrating to see the same thing happen again.
So, you may ask, why do I believe Foster has an automatic switch to the Bear front against this alignment?
On this play, Boston College aligns in the pistol, and the Hokies align in a 40 front. The Eagles then shift the tailback offset left, and the Hokie front switches immediately to the Bear front. Fadule then calls an audible back to the pistol, and the Hokies shift back.
In the 40 front, everything looks perfect. Ekanem squeezes inside keying the down block. Chuck Clark comes up to fill. On the back side, Nicolas (who is so much more comfortable out on the edge) keys the pulling tackle perfectly and uses his speed to blow up the play.
You may ask why Foster doesn't just use the 40 front against that personnel grouping. I think it would be a great question to ask him. I would guess that his use of the Bear against that alignment is because: 1) He regards the opposing tailbacks as bigger threats, and 2) The slant from the Bear still leaves his free hitter unblocked to account for the quarterback. So far this season, Foster's mike linebackers and alley players have been getting blocked, been out of position, or tackled poorly far too often.
Here, Chuck Clark gives us an example of what should happen in the Bear front when executed properly against the quarterback counter lead.
Motuapuaka and Clarke both played better after a dismal effort against Duke. Clarke used his speed off the edge to beat pulling linemen to the football numerous times. Motuapuaka was around the football most of the day, pressured the quarterback and made tackles on the interior. Motuapuaka still has a tendency to run himself into blocks. However, I saw moments where he avoided blocks without losing his gap fit responsibility. His touchdown return was a great example.
Boston College runs a counter trey. Dadi and Maddy get washed down inside. Motuapuaka, instead of taking a poor angle and running into Nicolas, gives a bit of ground to get around Nicolas and his blocker and then fills the hole. Terrell Edmunds comes in to support Motuapuaka. I cannot tell if Motuapuaka rips the ball out, or if Edmunds knocks it free, however pursuit and numerous hats around the football produce a turnover. Motuapuaka finds the ball and makes a play. Motuapuaka has taken a ton of heat this season, including from me. He still has limitations in both run defense and especially in pass coverage. Yet, it's still satisfying to see a kid that has faced so much criticism improve and make a big play.
Georgia Tech poses a very different challenge next week. Paul Johnson's approach doesn't change. We will see the triple option. We will see counter-option. We will see quick pitches and double dives. We will see big receivers that will go up and get jump balls and quick running backs trying to use play-action to get open in the flats.
Georgia Tech is inexperienced at the B-back and A-back positions. The timing of their triple option seems a bit off on film. The defenses that had success in stopping Georgia Tech this season, especially Notre Dame, took away the dive play from Georgia Tech's triple option with their defensive tackles. Their linebackers played well off the line of scrimmage and stayed clean against down blocks. This allowed the linebackers to flow outside and take away quarterback and pitch with numbers. Against GT, it is paramount that Maddy, Baron, Williams, and Sobczak stand tall against the dive to allow Motuapuaka to align well off the line of scrimmage and flow to the football.
I would also be remiss if I didn't mention the offense this week. The offense hasn't really been the root cause of the two most recent Hokies' losses. At the same time, there were some strange comments complaining about the offensive approach in the final quarter as the Hokies protected their lead.
I don't understand where these folks watch their football. With the lead cut to 13, the Hokies offense generated a series of first downs that took five minutes off the clock. The biggest play of the drive was this powerful run by Travon McMillian.
This play is what gives me real hope for the future. Championship caliber football isn't getting guys wide open and fooling a defense all the time. Championship football is when the defense knows exactly what you are going to do, has a great scheme called to stop it, and you get the first down anyway. Why? Will power.Travon McMillian doesn't get the first down at initial contact. He keeps going and beats the other guy. There has been too little of that in Blacksburg the last few years. McMillian may have sealed the game with this gutsy run. The offense didn't always look pretty, however that defensive unit is by far the best group in the front-seven the Hokies have played all season (including Pitt.) Connor Wujack, Harold Landry, and especially Steven Daniels are three of the best defensive players the Hokies have faced all season.
My hat is off to the offense.
Comments
Thanks French.
My problem with the offense was picking up approximately 40 net yards in the second half. That is Pittsburgh bad. I don't know the reason for it, but I feel like that is completely unacceptable. I get that the BC defense is great, but 40 net yards?
Our two 2nd half scoring drives:
4 plays, 8 yards, field goal
4 plays, 2 yards, field goal
Don't get me wrong, I was amazed with how the entire team performed in the first half and would take this game as a whole any day of the week. With that said, this was a great opportunity to get the relatively thin first string players off the field and build depth. BC made better changes at the half than VT on both sides of the ball.
Step 1: Win the game. We had already scored more points in a half than BC had scored all year against an FBS opponent. So, the coaching staff made the decision to play ultra-conservatively on offense and make BC's walkon freshman QB beat them. You could argue that running the offense and playing keep-away would have been a better strategy (that's my feeling anyway), but you can't blame them for that decision, especially since it worked. The goal was to not give them anything cheap from a strip-sack or an INT - although Travon kinda blew that one and had it not been for an overeager linesman, that would've been a defensive TD for BC. Happily for us, it worked. Even though BC was able to drive on us a bit towards the end of the game, everyone involved knew that would be too little, too late.
Our offense needs to get better. Playing ultra conservative helps nothing and just makes us look bad. I don't buy the ultra conservative theory anyways I just think we failed to execute.
Rule #1 is always play to win the game. Up 20-0 at half time against a team who is more likely to score on defense than they are on offense, you absolutely preserve the lead, run the clock, and force them to stop you from doing that. Don't give them a chance by getting cute and throwing the ball when there's no need for it. Had the scoop and score counted, sure, we would have likely opened it up. But since they didn't, grind out the play clock and keep the ball in bounds with runs. The only person who hates it is the fan who thinks there's a need to score more. Win by 1 or by 100, the team with more still gets the same W.
I agree. Style points are important now in the age of the Playoff but we're not a team that needs style points right now so there's really no reason to throw the ball. We had the lead. We were playing a team who scores more with their defense than they do with their offense(half joking). I think limiting the opportunities their defense gets to score points and running out the clock simultaneously was the smart thing to do. VT didn't need style points against BC. VT needed a W. Once we had the lead all we needed to do was protect the ball and keep the clock running. No better way to do that than running the ball. BC has an exceptional run defense and when they knew that was all we were going to do they did their best to stop it. That is why it looked ugly but in the long run we got the job done. VT got the W it needed and are able to move on to the next one.
style points help with recruiting as well. Not seeing many high profile offensive recruits showing much interest lately are we?
I won't disagree that style points help with recruiting. But TBH, winning in Chestnut hill was neither about getting style points for the CFP nor was it to impress recruits. The Hokies reverted back to the style of play Beamer used to make a name for himself and we won. I can't be mad at that.
We never ran the ball that poorly even if the box was stacked, but agree that at least we left with the W.
Again, I don't think it was conservative for most of the 2nd half. There were three dropped first down passes that killed drives. I disagree with the logic that play-calling is bad when it doesn't work due to an execution failure.
At the end, when the goal was to keep the defense off the field and eat up time, the Hokies had a five minute drive. BC was stacking the box, and the Hokies executed. I know that doesn't mean much to the video game footballers who think you should score every drive, but to line up and get first downs/chew up clock at the end of the game when a really really good defense KNOWS you are running the football is big time. In the same situation, with Dalvin Cook, FSU was 3 and out repeatedly in the second half against BC.
Here's a scary thought. New HC gets hired and Loeffler is looking for work. Steve Addazio hires him and BC now has a competent offense and a stellar defense. BC would be wise to go after Loeffler and if they do I think BC will start to challenge for the ACC and they'll be a nightmare team for anybody
Would make BC an easier win from here on out. Sign him up.
I completely disagree with this. BC is as easy a win right now as it's going to be. Their offense is even worse than the one we had with Stinespring. Loeffler is an upgrade from Stinespring, albeit a marginal one, and he would be a significant upgrade to BC's current OC. If BC can continue to field a defense like the one they had this year and pair that with a middle-of-the road offense, which is exactly what Loeffler brings to the table, they will be much more difficult to beat than they are right now. You're insane if you think they could get easier to beat with Loeffler coaching their offense.
yes because 2 of 3 years of the SL era have been so much better than BC has been offensively lately. Insane is acting like SL is a hot commodity and would even be offered this job. Addazio would be looking for a new job himself the next year.
Loeffler has worked for Addazio before. I don't think it would be a stretch for him to snatch him up. I'm not saying that Loeffler is a hot commodity. IF I was saying that I'd be proposing a place like Miami or UVA might consider hiring him as a HC. I'm saying that BC's offense is so horrendously bad that they could get Loeffler on the cheap and he could make that offense good enough to win games with that defense. Think about what our record would be right now if we had BC's defense instead of our own. VT has done enough to win most of it's games offensively. The defense has been exposed time and time again. BC limited every team they played except us and Clemson to less than 14 offensive points. That includes Florida State. If VT was able to limit every team we've played to less than 14 points we would be 9-0
Didn't we think the same thing when we brought in a new offense staff to pair with our defense? Seldom works out that way.
yeah. and we got our top 60 offense that we wanted. Where the heck is our defense though?
we are 86th in total offense. if not for a 4 OT game not sure our scoring offense would be much better.
I mean the 42 (furman), 51 (purdue) and 43 (4 OT game) were really impressive I guess.
for the sake of argument, what is BC's total offense rating?
dead last this year I think 127th.
and so improving them from dead last to 86th would make them easier to beat in your opinion?
yeah, sure. I'll have whatever you're smoking.
because SL improved our offense in his first two years, right?
Other than against Clemson, we've scored more against BC and NC State than any other opponent they faced. We put up 12 points more than BC's average allowed and 9 more than NC State's. Underplay the Purdue win, but no team has put up as many as we did against them either. Numbers that aren't adjusted or at the very least compared to the overall profile of the opponent and what they do are meaningless.
like talking up our scoring output when it factors in defensive scores?
And the opponent's defensive numbers factor in scores from turnovers caused by the offense. The ball bounces both ways.
You're never gonna get knawaz to recognize loeffler can do anything right.
Would love to be able to talk up our OC, but there hasn't been anything to warrant that. Said before the season if we weren't at least a top 70 offense (in total offense) that he had to go and we're sitting at 86th having played some terrible teams.
yeah, like boston college.
I don't think you've watched our games this past year. Do you know why we're losing?
(HINT: Not because of our O.)
unfortunately I've watched them all and both phases of the ball have caused losses. We just aren't a very good football team in any phase consistently.
Saying we haven't lost any games because of our O is one of the most clueless comments I've seen talking about this year.
Anybody who was expecting a different overall result against BC, both on offense and defense, should be considered a clueless or misinformed fan.
let me guess you are one of the people on here predicting 9+ wins this year?
Considering everyone on this site think's you're completely off your rockers, saying i'm clueless relative you to is a compliment.
Again refer to preseason prediction thread. I don't really care what people that can't objectively discuss VT football think about me. I'm a huge VT fan, but can take a step back and discuss the team without being a complete homer.
Just to be clear your argument is that our defense has cost us more games than our offense this year? A defense that while yes they have underachieved is still ranked 34th in total defense and 51st in scoring defense as compared to an offense ranked 86th in total offense and 55th in scoring offense. Both units have blown games but if you expect the defense to be top 10 every year and the offense to be in the 100s I can see why you are blaming the defense.
OSU - Offense was looking competitive until Brewer went down. Defense looked listless in second half
ECU - Offense scored enough points to win. Defense couldn't tackle down the stretch and allowed too many long 3rd down conversions which kept several ECU drives alive. I think you can blame that loss on the defense and have a pretty good argument for doing so
Pitt - This one's on the offense.
Miami - You can blame this on the offense for the turnovers. You also have to question the defense's effort though. Didn't really rally to the football.
Duke - Offense did enough to win. Even if it was an OT game, the offense still scored plenty of points. The defense gave up huge plays. Especially on First Down of the Last OT period. That was inexcusable.
I think it's fair to levy pretty even blame on the offense and defense this year. Neither unit is guilt free. It is my opinion that this offense is performing at a higher level than in years past given the circumstances they're under. Having played effectively 6 games with our back-up QB we're not in as bad of shape as we could be.
Which is all I was saying. Both units have major faults. He added in a snarky comment that it wasn't the offense's fault we were losing. As for Duke, the offense only scored what 24 in regulation? Not like we scored the 55 UNC did or anything.
we also don't have the same level of talent as UNC. I don't see you praising our offense for dropping 51 on Purdue. Michigan State only scored 24 on Purdue. I'm fine with recognizing the faults of our offense but you seem completely unwilling to give our offense any kind of credit when they do anything good. I'd sure hate to be your dog.
Because I watched the purdue game and wasn't impressed by beating an absolutely horrible team? MSU has played down to their competition all year and it finally caught up to them last weekend. Also keep in mind the defense scored 7 against purdue and the offense gave up 7 points to Purdue's defense. We've had some stretches where the offense looked capable and some that made me wonder if we were even trying to move the ball. I can't think of one game where we played a decent opponent and played a consistent game. ECU is probably the closest and we still had long stretches there where we did nothing.
I just hope that whoever the new coach is makes you happy. I have a bad feeling you just won't be satisfied.
not sure why you are worried/concerned about how I feel? If we have a new coach/existing coach elevated to HC that has us playing sound football and not looking like we have the last 3 years it will definitely be a step in the right direction. That's just talking in terms of penalties/time management not even addressing recruiting, scheme, philosophy etc.
I think where you're off base is that if you look at the improvements that have occurred on offense as a whole relative to defense, you'll see an improve and consistent offense (relatively speaking) and an inconsistent defense.
And outside of Pittsburgh, I'd be hard pressed to find a game where our offense let us down (perhaps even Miami). In fact, the only two games I can think where our D bailed us out and not the other way around was perhaps this past BC game.
So the point is, if you look at HOW we've won this past year, you'll see it's due to our offense stepping up and our defense stepping down, and more so often than not, the offense has bailed out our D.
I don't see much improvement on the offense. I do agree with others that things may have looked a lot better if MB hadn't been hurt against OSU, which is unfortunate but that's football. The Duke game should have never even gone into OT if the offense had done more and earlier. ECU we started fast then forgot how to play offense for 2 quarters. We scored 20 against Miami and again had a 2 quarter lull with only 3 points. Just for a point of reference Miami has only given up 20 points or less to us Bethune cookman and FAU.
Of course relative to the defense the offense looks better there is no denying that, but that's because we are used to a top 10 defense and it's drastically declined this year.
Hold on, you can't use relative stats that compare their performance against other teams to support your argument. Do the points scored take into account defensive and special teams scores? I mean, that makes all the difference, right?
You guys have been doing that all along. We scored x against BC's defense so that's all we needed to do because BC has only given up more points to Clemson, etc. I've watched all the games. If you have been impressed by any phase of our team this year I don't know what to tell you other than we are 4-5 and have not played a difficult slate so keep that in mind. The best aspect of our team this year may be FG kicking and that was even after a rocky start.
I don't think anybody is saying they've been particularly impressed with any phase of our game. This all started because I said BC might get Loeffler and that would be good for them. You disagreed. But then you said yourself that their offense is ranked 120 something and ours is 86th. I think that would constitute as an improvement for them. You've gone out of your way to bash Loeffler and his offense. We get it, his offense isn't impressing anyone. But at least it's not dead last.
Listening to Knawaz's comments (whatever his name is) makes me want to repeatedly ram my head into a wall.
Here is what you need to consider, instead of blindly saying, uhh..we are 4-5.... we stink.
Beginning of season, provide realistic expectations with current talent. Compare to previous years with similar talent, should we be better or worse?. Starting QB gets knocked out, expectations change. Best DB out for year, expectations change.
Which offensive unit has not improved? Motley doesn't have sample size. Brewer, yes. McMillan, yes. Rogers, yep. O-line: hell yeah. Phillips/Ford: Extremely. TE's: Push
You provide no substance for your point of view. I'll go ram my head into the wall again in preparation for your comment.
Yep, that's a scary thought for BC fans.
Its not a great number, but its more by design than being outplayed. BC stopped the drives, sure, but never got good enough field position out of them for it to matter. We won the game by forcing BC to do something they couldn't, score on offense consistently.
After all the talk I see about the Hokies not having an identity and not being tough enough, I'm sort of surprised this tough, grind it out for an entire half hasn't gotten more love.
Seconded. Big time.
Totally agree, 40 total yards in a half of football is not satisfactory , no matter the score , defense or other circumstances. Still a much needed win and good effort by a team that could have folded after Duke.
I have a feeling that our next head coach will not take that approach.
What scoring offense is acceptable to everybody? VT currently sits at 55, a pretty dramatic improvement from years past. In contrast, our scoring defense currently has us at 51, a dramatic decline.
Our defense was in the conversation for best ever prior to the season, at least top 10. You put even top 20 defense with a top 60 offense, and we are very happy.
I agree. Our offense isn't winning us games, but they are not losing games either (with the exception of Pitt).
and Miami. I think an argument could be made that the offense lost that game.
And probably more specifically, the TOs lost the game, more so than the O in general
Winning is acceptable. I could care less what the stats say if a W goes up on the left column beside of "Hokies" in the standings.
I kinda agree...but not really. That's the type of mentality that said "we can suck at O, but as long as our D is solid and we get 10-wins a season, we don't have ANY problems on offense! No sir! We're good!"
You say "suck" I say "executed in the 4th quarter and got first downs to run out the clock."
As someone who went 10-0 in a college football season with an offense that only had 32 passing first downs all season, I can say definitively that offense being functional and using clock as a means to hold leads and keep your defense fresh can be a good thing, PROVIDED that offense executes properly. Those drops were all drive killers, and each catch would have resulted in anywhere from 2-4 additional minutes removed from the clock. When BC scored, the offense responded by bleeding 5 minutes off the clock against a defense that knew what was coming AND had stuffed every team but Clemson this season.
Man... I don't get you guys sometimes. Do I want them to score 50 a game? Sure. But, if it doesn't happen, yet they still win and execute solidly against a terrific defense, people want to complain? Goodness gracious sakes alive.
I think you misconstrued what I was trying to say. I'm a fan of grinding out the clock to preserve a lead by all means. It's just the "i don't care as long as we get the W" mentality is a slippery slope, since our 2004-2011(ish) inept offensive performance was not addressed due to consistently getting the "W".
defense has definitely been disappointing, but haven't we already scored more defensive tds this year than we have in the last several? Those count towards the offensive scoring BTW.
Yes, just using scoring offense is a little misleading, as it counts all points (defensive, special teams, etc). However, given the circumstances, up 20 at half, true freshman QB, etc, what would you expect the team to do? The 2nd half was all about managing the score, not giving any momentum, and forcing BC to sustain drives/not give up big plays. Analyzing any 2nd half offense is meaningless.
For the people that have been chanting fire loeffler the ultra conservative approach did him no favors. We went from being on pace to 500 yards for the BC game to ending with 300. I understand the reason why the turtle and it worked. But we are also judging these coaches based on stats in addition to w-l's. The ultraconservative approach hurt our season numbers and their his job performance review.
A good OC is going to have a different game plan for every game, right? Same identity, same philosophy, but a plan tailored to the opponent. You can't judge his performance by reading the total numbers aggregated over the season.
Man, can't anybody be happy?
I understand the desire to generate stats and numbers that look good, but 26-10 over BC with the team's back against the wall by fans, press etc is damn impressive. (Rant over)
Thanks, French for some actual football talk as a diversion.
Exactly. It could have easily been last year's Wake game all over again. Instead, it feels like a comfortable win (the first since Purdue) and everyone is all angst-y.
"I don't understand where these folks watch their football."
"I know that doesn't mean much to the video game footballers who think you should score every drive, but to line up and get first downs/chew up clock at the end of the game when a really really good defense KNOWS you are running the football is big time."
"everyone is all angst-y"
Sorry for being one of those people that are happy for then end result, but still see room for improvement. Personally, I couldn't care less about running the score up for style points. A win is a win and I will take it. What confuses me is people citing injuries and lack of depth as a big reason for our struggles, but then being okay with this second half.
We needed the refs to blow a call to keep BC from getting back in the game. Yes, that one drive at the end of the game was great and the offense should be applauded. They picked up first downs when we needed it. While they looked good on that drive, there is still no guarantee that the offense could have "turned on" if BC got back in the game.
I get protecting the ball. I get "guaranteeing" the win. I don't understand risking players and missing an opportunity to develop depth. I mean, if the coaches are adverse to running up the score and are confident that the team could "turn on" when needed, why not let your backups get some reps? Go in at the half up 20-0, come out with the first string and score on your opening drive, then let the second string get reps. You don't need "style points" for that, right?
Second-string VT vs. the #1 defense in the country does not sound like a recipe for success. I think it's defensible to need/rely on starters to grind out that second half against BC.
Sure, but you see what MEChase is saying, right?
If you punch out one more score with your offense, your second string can get some reps in the fourth quarter.
The assumption, of course, is that the offense was capable of doing that, but it does make sense to try.
Yes, if our first-string offense was good enough/consistent enough/whatever to put us in a position to do this, we'd have a lot more wins and our second stringers would be getting lots of reps. Truth is, our offense is improved but not consistent enough. Lots of drops, miscues, etc. that cut things off short. So we had to keep the first team out there. We can wish for whatever we like, but the truth was that our offense is at a point where it was (1) possible and (2) necessary to grind this one out.
MEchase is talking about the offensive strategy, and how aggressive it should have been.
If the assumption is that the offense wasn't capable of anything else, then the point is moot.
French's point is also well-taken. Of all the things to be angsty about, this one is on the lower-level of things to worry about, unless the offensive strategy costs them the game.
There is always room for improvement. But when you look at the offense versus Duke and BC compared to the performance against Pitt and Miami... THAT IS IMPROVEMENT.
Nailed it.
via GIPHY
I know we only scored 20 points against Miami but I remember during that game that it felt like our offense was able to move the ball rather well throughout the course of the game, we were just plagued by turnovers
Since we are back to football, which I am sure Frank wants as well. Any status on Donovan Riley's injury?
I have not heard anything
Thank You.
I bet if the stats stayed the same and the score stayed the same but the quarters in which they were scored changed people would be a lot happier. That being said, I understand all the protecting the lead and running the ball but I also think 40 yds is pretty pathetic. I also understand that some drops stalled drives and who knows what would have happened with those. It seemed that we went a little conservative a little early though from what I remember. I'm glad with the win though and would have liked to have seen us do more of what we were doing in the first half. Oh well.
As to Motu he played really well in that game however in the third clip you see him "juke" back into the inside block which freed BC's QB to get the large gain. Against Thomas that dude is gone. If he maintains outside contain he either gets the tackle or pushes the QB back inside towards clarke and whomever else is right there. My point being that he still has a tendency to allow himself to get blocked. Against GT we will get burned for that.
Great article as always French, great read.
I 100% agree that Foster was checking out of Bear against the Pistol formation. Foster reads the alignment of the running back in the shotgun and slants his defensive line accordingly. When the Back is aligned even with the QB, the defense has to worry about the outside zone or sweep and any QB counters. The defensive line slants aggressively at the snap to take away the threat of any outside zone while the Mike is reading G-C-G for any pullers and filling to either spill it outside or "hammer" it back inside. On the play you showcased, Moto should have stayed on the outside shoulder of the pulling tackle and forced the QB back up the middle into Clarke. Instead, Moto jumped inside and Clarke had to run the bubble all the way to the sideline rather than being able to crash straight down field. Reading the alignment of the RB allows Foster to dictate what is available to the offense (only QB counter). He has to get Moto better at attacking the right shoulder and the deep safety filling quicker.
Against Pistol formations, the offense doesn't tip their hand as to which way the back is going so Foster can't slant his defensive line to dictate where the ball is going to go. All of his keys go out the window, so he loses the advantages of his Bear scheme.