Mine is burning Lawson's Redshirt..
If we did it because he needed playing time b\c he was then the defacto #2; we didn't give him enough time - so i don't buy that.
If we did it because we thought he was the best option at the time... i don't get that because we didn't play him enough.
If we burned his shirt and then realized he wasn't as good as we thought.. Okay i can see that
I just don't understand the flippant decision to burn the Redshirt if we weren't going to make use of it.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Makes me wonder if part of his recruitment was promising he wouldn't redshirt
i thought about this...
That along with hiring his old HS coach...
Speaking of, any indication whether or not he will keep his position?
Most people were thinking no, but apparently he was photographed with JF at a high school game
My theory is that we burned his shirt because somebody promised him playing time this year. He got his playing time (technically) and so he wasn't lied to. I think it was a pretty raw deal for him either way. I really don't understand why we burned his redshirt for 1 (2?) game. That's really shi**y IMO. Hopefully that puts a chip on his shoulder and he works like hell to win the starting job next season and plays his nuts off to prove that he is a stud and deserves some QB1 PT.
Lawson played in 5 games, although he played very sparingly outside of the Furman game.
Thanks for fact checking me on that. I only remember seeing him in the Furman game. Which other games did he participate in?
I still feel that he was seriously under-utilized given that they burned his red-shirt. I think the management of the offense in general(from inconsistent game planning, player personnel decisions, situational play calling, perhaps even management of offensive staff) was sub-par for most of the season. I hope Justin Fuente brings in a staff that is more organized and looks like they're on the same page more often than the previous regime. I don't think it'll be that hard to do.
Despite the shortcomings of our offense, which will ultimately fall on Loeffler, I think he did a terrific job restocking the cupboard. If our offense takes off next year under Fuente's new OC I think at least a part of that can be attributed to the recruiting efforts of the Loeffler era. I believe that our offense has more talent right now than it has had in a long long time and I'm excited to see what the new coaches can do with all these shiny new toys to play with. I'm not expecting a top-10 offense in his first year but I think it is reasonable to expect our offense to be, at worst, as good as the Loeffler offense. Perhaps even more consistent.
Offense Under Loeffler 2015:
FEI - 96
S&P - 81
Offense Under Fuente 2015:
FEI - 13
S&P - 21
I think it would be fair to expect an offense in the 60s next season. The obvious short coming we have is at QB but we have boat loads of talent around him to help take some of the pressure off. An embattled and experienced O-line, a whole barn full of RBs and some gifted and seasoned receiving threats should help to mask some of the short comings we can expect from a first year starting QB.
*rankings came from football outsiders
FEI
S&P
He came in for five plays against Purdue, and one play each against ECU and NC State. Some of those were just Motley losing his helmet and sitting out a play. Ignoring the Furman game, he was 0-2 passing, with five rushes for 4 yards. Nothing that really tells us anything about his potential. Source: http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/dwayne-lawson-1/gamelog/2015/
That's mostly right, although that game log only accounts for his statistics, not total snaps.
Lawson came into the Purdue game early in the 4th quarter, but after back-to-back 3 & outs followed by a Purdue TD that pulled them within 20 points, we put Motley and the 1st teamers back in the game (and drove down the field for another TD). Lawson then went back in for the next series, which was 4 straight handoffs to Shai McKenzie that iced the game. So, in total he logged 10 plays against Purdue.
In the ECU game, Lawson came in on a designed run on 3rd & short (and converted for a 1st down). I believe that is the only snap Lawson had.
In the NC State game, Lawson came in on a 3rd & long when Motley had to leave due to injury. He threw an incomplete pass and Motley was back in on the next drive. I believe that is the only snap Lawson had.
Lawson is credited with playing against Miami but he did not accumulate any statistics, and I honestly do not recall him playing. If I had to guess, it was probably one play for a helmet situation and he must have handed the ball off.
So yeahhhh, I think he played a total of 13 plays after the Furman game.
He was in for one play against Miami and he fumbled the snap. I don't think he played the rest of the year after that.
Ahh. Thanks!
We thought it would be fair for the offense to be in the 50s-60s this year.
You're right. And with the talent we have we should have been. I think Fuente is a proven offensive mind which is in stark contrast to Loeffler. I had hopes for Loeffler, and he's not an idiotic moron when it comes to offense, but he doesn't have the track record that Fuente has. I am much more confident in Fuente's ability to take this team into that range offensively than I ever was in Loeffler.
I think we can safely say that Loeffler's next employer should never let him call plays. No matter how nicely he asks.
The season was full of clusterfooks many of which could have been avoided despite losing our QB, a Fuller and having some strange personnel issues. Lawson having his redshirt pulled might turn out to be a stroke of genius when all is said and done. However, I have a strong feeling it was done to deflect the criticism that was being heavily lobbed at the coaching staff for Motley's play in the OSU game. So far it does look really sh**y as you say. And I know this is our legendary coach's last season and he has done much to make us better than before but I believe, and I must be in the minority and will catch a lot of flack but I feel the same way that coaches doled out criticism and judgment to me, they deserve the same when things they do are head scratchers. Frank Beamer did not have a good season at the helm and it's pretty much his own fault. In fact, I believe this season did not have to have the relatively pizz poor result we saw and since Coach Beamer is still accepting the dollars any flack he gets for it cannot necessarily be dismissed as hater talk. All that said, none of us are perfect, and playing for him overall must be a great dadgum experience that will get after ya.
Ironically, not redshirting Lawson may make him more likely to transfer. He would need to sit out a year (unless he stepped down a level) so he could redshirt then. However, I don't think he is going to transfer. He is 20 or 21 and should be starting next year.
Let's hope you're right and he is Fuente's Vick and the two have a love affair that lasts a life time.
This and the RB rotation at the beginning of the season. Burning Lawson's redshirt was just bad all around. The only thing that makes sense is that he was promised playing time. But just because that makes sense as far as burning his shirt goes, doesn't make it smart or a good precedent to set. Still scratching my head about it and how it takes half a season to realize you need to give McMillian the rock.
i think i put the rb rotation out of my mind and not sure how it didnt come to my mind when thinking about this topic.
always will think back to a few season a go when we did the famous 3 and long draw play to dustin pickle.. rational was it was his turn in rotation and no way miami was expecting it. LOL
And how Edmunds was the goal line back for so long. I know its not 100% on him, but it seemed like he got stuffed way more often than he got into the endzone. To me, he looked like he was running like the ball was at the 40, like he was trying a break a run, rather than charging forward, knowing he needed to fall forward for a yard or two.
That Coach Beamer allowed his son to mess up the rb rotation for so long this season. It was nice when McMillian finally got the bulk of the carries over the lets make sure every gets a participation trophy mentality...
While I agree that the head-scratching RB rotation was probably mostly on Shane, I just can't buy into that being definitely true. We cannot rule out the possibility that Loeffler had more to do with the RB rotation than we think. We just don't know for sure without being in the meetings with coaches.
That being said, if you go by the logic that the RB coach is responsible for the RB rotation, I think you could argue that the burning of the QB's red-shirt is the responsibility of the QB coach. That one falls pretty squarely on Loeffler's shoulders IMO. I think he might have promised Lawson some playing time. In effect, promised that he wouldn't red-shirt. Look on the bright side, we probably have a pissed off and talented QB who is going to give it his all to prove the doubters wrong. That, paired with a proven QB developer, could do some serious damage. I'm excited to see what our offense looks like in a couple of years.
Good discussion, because in hindsight it looks like a tough pill. Given our past history to retain the red shirt unless in dire straits, I don't think the coaches would've arbitrarily burned it. I think they had a plan for the season, but then after Brewer went down and Motley moved into QB1, it became less about designing packages for him and simply prepping him to be QB2. Was burning the shirt and giving him playing time a way of getting him prepped as QB2 in case Brewer didn't come back, ensuring we didn't have him taking the first snaps with the game on the line?
I'm no expert but I expect those are highly different sets of parameters, and something the coaching staff didn't do lightly. Add in the fact that we probably did anticipate getting him specific packages and told him that, and *poof* we have what we have. We also don't know what his development progress has been, good or bad. I think we'll know a lot more when we see Coach Fuente's offense in the spring, and who's doing what.
Add in the fact that most of our games were down-to-the wire, come-from-behind, every-play-matters, and there probably weren't many places our staff felt we could get him that playing time. Maybe in Shreveport, we'll get to see all 3.
That doesn't fit the narrative many people want that this staff is just bad, Frank Beamer only hired Shane because he is his son. Rational thought out analysis of an issue has no place here.
This adds nothing to the conversation though.
The results still wern't good. So not sure what point you are trying to make
For VT football I have a few:
- The clock management in the Duke game and trying to kick a 67 yard FG
- The targeting ejection in the ECU game
- The inability to make adjustments offensively for SO long during games
- The RB rotation
For the college football season:
- The end of the Miami vs. Duke game
Since you brought up officiating - how about the pass interference against ECU
I forgot about that one.
And the pass interference against VT on the key anOSU drive. The VT defender was 2-3 ft away from the receiver and didn't touch him.
Any time we had Trey Edmunds in on 3rd and short after the RB rotation was settled.
I'm pretty sure this happened twice.
Always the slowest developing plays and he gets brought down from behind...
He converted most of those actually until we telegraphed EXACTLY where we were going to run it for like the 3rd or 4th time in a game
Hindsight is 20/20 but burning Lawson's redshirt made perfect sense at the time. To me, the head scratching part of this wasn't that Lawson's redshirt was burned, it was that he was unable to win more playing time from Motley.
When Brewer went down against Ohio State, it was unrealistic to maintain a redshirt for Lawson, regardless of what he was or wasn't promised during recruiting. We knew we had at least 5 or 6 games without Brewer, assuming he didn't have any setbacks and was even able to return at all. Based on Motley's complete inability to stay healthy in 2014 in very limited playing time, it was a reasonable assumption that it was unlikely Motley would be able to stay healthy through 5+ games playing every down. From that perspective, it made all the sense in the world to ease Lawson into some playing time against Furman and start getting him ready in case he was needed.
Lawson looked ok against Furman, and I honestly thought he would be our starter by the Pitt game. Then he struggled a bit at Purdue when he came on in relief of Motley (Motley was subsequently reinserted for another series before Lawson was allowed back in). After Purdue, Lawson appeared in another 3 games and had a designed run here or there but played very sparingly, even though we didn't see Brewer for another 3.5 games. I don't know what happened behind the scenes, but like I said, it was disappointing to me that he couldn't work his way into more playing time.
Honestly, I wouldn't get too bent out of shape over the decision to burn his redshirt. We have been in this situation before where a highly touted player burned a redshirt and received very little playing time (Macho and David Wilson come to mind) but as it turned out, neither of them would have returned for another season anyway. If Lawson turns out to be really good, 3 years as a starter will be more than enough before he wants to go to the NFL. If he winds up not panning out, then there's nothing to really wring our hands about.
Good take
I used to think Lawson could be a 3 yr starer- but i am not sure he will beat out Motley. I did however read about Fuente going with Paxton Lynch over their "proven" qb as Lynch was the future. I see this as the only way Lawson takes the starting gig from Motley at this point.
Duke game where we return the kickoff to the 5 yard line and then take a 9-minute 20 play drive for a touchdown.
This might explain why we consistently give up starting field position on the 25 in hopes we can have a 99 yard monster clock eating drive. How many teams can say they had a 99 yard drive after a kickoff? /s.
Funny Gif, but this was from the 2012 Chic Fil A kick off I believe.
'13 I think against Bama
the non-special teams game
Unfortunately, or I guess fortunately, there isn't a head scratching Beamer gif for every year of football.
Oh no- that face sums it all up from '12-'15
I believe it was the second game in 2007 against LSU. I remember feeling real bad for CFB when I saw that on TV. Never saw him breakdown like that. Got so bad even ESPN announcers started trying to defend the VT program.... Ugh, what an ugly game. Then we burned Tyrod Taylor's red shirt in that game.
Note the grey jerseys in the background. We weren't wearing grey against lsu.
Yeah, that GIF is from the 2013 Bama game. I think it was after one of the three major special teams blunders.
I thought it was 2012 but I think 2013 is right. LT3's senior year and first year under Loeffler. I keep getting that mixed up. IDK why I keep thinking 2012 was LT3's last year.
And the Chick-fil-a Kickoff patch on Frank's shirt.
The Miami game was puzzling. Motley started, after VT said Brewer could play. Motley played terrible and dug us into a hole then we threw Brewer in too little too late and couldn't mount a comeback. So why couldn't Brewer start? And why didn't he go in sooner after Motley showed he couldn't protect the ball (keep in mind he got away with a few throws that should've been picked off or that were ruled incomplete).
Of course I agree with the redshirts, RB rotation, and some clock management stuff.
I've decided this all plays into the mystery that is Lefty...
Always go down early and make a crazy comeback effort. Shows how tough and determined you are by fighting against all odds and how you got things figured out.
What else makes more sense than for Brewer's comeback to be against Miami (who wants to do nothing more than decapitate Brewer) in a situation when we obviously have to drop back and a pass down several TD's
kind of like how I could never start a paper or project until the day before? The football equivalent of procrastination-induced pressure performance?
I don't disagree with the staff for not starting Brewer. Just because someone can play doesn't mean they're 100%, and as important Brewer had proven to be, it really wasn't worth it to start him if there was the potential for us to be okay without him. The baffling part was how late they decided "Motley can't fix this. Let's use Brewer." By that time in the game Brewer's hands were tied to going for miraculous attempts, which really aren't his forte. I wish they would have drawn their line in the sand as being at half time or after the 2nd turnover. Not "If things aren't going well around the 4th quarter send Brewer in"
Most head scratching moment in the '15 season for me was when Mike London decided to go for the fake punt in the 1st quarter in his own territory on 4th and forever.
Not that I'm complaining or anything....
Apparently that was the punter's decision. If the defense gives a certain look, you run for it. As London said after the game though, "there should probably be a distance component to that decision as well".
As much as we've given grief to Beamer about poor fake punts that he said was the kicker's decision, this appears to be pretty standard practice. UNC and Clemson each had one in the ACC championship game.
..and, my goodness, did Clemson's punter catch some heat from Dabo for that decision.
Oh god, he exploded when he saw that happen. I would have cried in the corner of I were that punter.
My most head scratching moment comes from the UVA game - why on earth would London call a fake punt on a 4th and 16??!?
Must have been something they saw on film. They would have had it had our guy not ran it down from behind and saved it. There were blockers for days out in front of that play. We dodged a bullet there.
The most head scratching thing to me this season was the inability of our front 4 to put pressure on the opposing QB. I know sacks don't tell the full story, but in 2014 (13 games) we had 48 sacks as a team, including 26 by the DL. In 2015 (12 games), we had 21 sacks total, with 12 by the DL. Ekanem and Dadi went from 18.5 combined sacks in 2014 to 4.5 this season. Our DBs have taken heat this season for their coverage, and, while a lot of that has rightfully been attributed to youth in the secondary, one of the overlooked contributing factors was how long opposing QBs were able to stand in the pocket.
I agree. This past summer, I was looking forward to the greatest D-line in VT history:
Everyone in this photo looks tough, but Ken's got that "I secretly farted" look on his face.
Dadi - "Man...what's that smell!? Who farted!?"
Maddy to Marshall - "Man, was that you?"
Marshall - "Nah man, I thought that was you.."
Ken - "....."
distinct Joey Van Zegeren look on his face. I never realized how much these two look alike.
And to add, how infuriating it was to watch both 'immobile' and mobile QB's get long run after long run.
Frustrating and lost us a few games this year, IMHO
Every game we lost outside of OSU!
I really hope burning the red shirt doesn't end up to be Tyrod 2.0 and having him one more year will make the difference in a great and not-so-great future team.
I don't mean to dwell in the past but I think we go undefeated 2011 with Tyrod at QB and face LSU in the Natty. That wasn't a good Clemson team we lost to that year. They got thumped by GT, NCst, and got 70 dropped on them by WVU. They had some stuff of ours figured out though and our offense/Logan played uncharacteristically bad both games, especially the ACCCG, given the tear we had been on before that game.
We aren't beating Clemson in '11 regardless of who the QB is, because Stiney had zero answer for their press coverage. The decision might have come down after '12, but going 0-2 against Clemson is what sealed Stiney's fate, IMO.
I disagree, Tyrod masked Stiney's issues big time from 2009-2010. I think he makes enough plays to win those games. Although this discussion is completely meaningless and impossible to be sure haha.
Tyrod couldn't make up for Stiney's scheme vs Stanford the year before. Tyrod could make chicken salad out of chicken shit on a broken play, but he couldn't overcome when the OC was completely outmatched. No QB can.
And if we can't have meaningless conversations with no possibility of certainty on the internet, that's not a world I want to live in.
fair enough haha, but Stanford had a much better defense than Clemson did that year. Additionally, they weren't they only team to ever play press coverage against Stiney, it wasn't that simple. I think with Tyrod the play calls are different and there is too much to assume for sure, but I don't see us losing those games with Tyrod, we were a better football team than Clemson that year, it was a bad matchup for us though, and Logan played poorly both games.
I don't know, rolling Tyrod out of the pocket made corners crap themselves, I am sure sure a few times the press corner left their man for the QB run or Tyrod busted some long sideline runs before gracefully stepping out of bounds would have the defense rethinking their plan.
You know they'd all seen footage of the 3rd-and-31 he converted against FSU.
^^this, plus not sure we win Coastal in 2007 without Tyrod even splitting time with SG
ECU firing Ruffin McNeill
no doubt!
I also think SCAR hiring Muschamp would be a big head-scratcher. After seeing what he did to Florida I don't really understand how he could get another shot at a P5 HC job right away.
He hired his OC from Florida too.... hahaha
What's unbelievable about the South Carolina debacle is that they had a month and a half head start on this process when Spurrier resigned on October 13th, and yet they still bungled the hell out of this.
Yeah, it makes me appreciate Whit that much more.
USCe has an inflated sense of importance, both their fans and admin. They would not accept a lower level coach coming in and getting the head whistle and only a top tier coordinator from the SEC or maybe the BIG/BIG 10. Since they weren't getting any of them worth anything this is what we got.
Most head-scratching things sorted into categories:
VT:
1) Our RB rotation early in the year
2) Our defensive line performance given the hype
CFB:
1) Miami/Duke. What.
2) MichSt/Michigan. Double What.
3) GT/FSU. What on Earth.
4) Texas over Oklahoma. What the What.
5) Nebraska over MichSt. What the front door.
Coaching:
1) Mike London
2) ECU
3) USCe, all of it
4) USCw
Well at least one benefit of the Fuente era will be that I no longer mix up CFB (Coach Frank Beamer) and CFB (College Football).
This is embarrassing...but it took me longer than it should have to connect the two.
Mine is letting a wide receiver throw a pass in overtime. I am still furious.
I actually liked that playcall. We were trying to go for the win instead of playing it conservatively into another overtime on purpose. Not sure if I'm in the majority on this though.
I loved the playcall. The receiver was open.....and just needed to throw it a little further (or earlier). Going for the win was the right decision.
Yea that was definitely a head scratcher. We had been running the ball so well and we threw 3 passes (including that one) in that OT.
The head scratching theme of Lefty's career: his refusal to commit to a ground game, even when the situation called for it. I think it was the nail in his coffin.
I get it. You're a QB coach. You can finally run the offense you want to run, and you want to base it on a really awesome passing tree based on triangles. It's a good passing game design. But guess what: you can run the ball too!
I believe it was the word of French that described it the best:
"Too complex of a passing game philosophy; Too simple of a running game philosophy." - or something of the sorts to that matter.
I'm not even certain the passing game is too complex. Brewer's struggles in passing seemed to be almost entirely arm related. He could usually find the open man (and there was almost always an open man, a testament to the passing design) but he couldn't always deliver the ball on time and on target. The problem, in my mind, is that there was not equal dedication to designing and sustaining a run game. Lefty was all about creating and exploiting a mismatch in the passing game, but I never saw that happen in the run game.
The best thing I can say about Lefty in the run game is his full embrace of the removal of the "no pushing the runner" rule. It's obvious that Lefty and Searels coached the offense, specifically the OL, to always respond when they see our ball carrier get stood up. The instinct of all our OL is the surge ahead behind our back and drive the pile forward. This was best evidenced against UVA since it went for like ten yards, but they've been doing it all season. And kudos to Lefty and Searels for understanding that he rule change allowed for us to almost always pick up extra yards. But that's really more of an attitude, not a specific design of the running game. I think it will benefit Fuente, because unless explicitly instructed otherwise, our OL will continue to push the runner forward in a scrum. But as far as actually designing a running game to complement the passing attack, Lefty fell short.
I think Lefty really needed a run-game coordinator and he lost that when Grimes left and that was never recouped.
10000000 times YESSS
The 67-yard field goal is up there. But Beamer said Slye has hit from 70, so maybe not.
With that leg I hope Slye gets the change for a free kick off of a fair catch at least once. He's put it through the uprights on kickoffs before.
He'd have to do it once in the NFL. Apparently (news to me) the fair catch kick isn't a rule in NCAA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_catch_kick
Welp, the more you know.
Leg
I didn't mind the call. I think the probability that he makes it is similar to that of a successful hail mary for a TD. The real head scratcher in that game was the clock management right before that. We wasted a lot of time that we could have used to get in better field goal range.
Yea, the moment for me was nobody on entire team and sideline realizing the clock was running. Call that timeout and that game could have ended a lot differently.
Slye implied that he had hit one that long a time or two. Probably not even with an OL in front of him, really unlikely he had actual defensive pressure.
It was an awful decision, not that a Hail Mary was going to be successful. The FG attempt just demonstrated a lack rational thought.
No, it demonstrated more trust in the leg strength of our kicker than the arm strength of our often battered QB who has little to no deep ball skills. If he wanted a deep throw that would make it to the endzone, we'd have been better using Motley, but the kick was not a bad choice.
Yep, the rational move was to bring Motley in for that throw. Against Purdue, he threw a ball 60 yards in the air on the run.
I would have even preferred Brewer dropping back for a hail mary and hitting Stroman or Ford on a 30 yard crossing pattern and see if they can get a block. That would work better than a hopeless 67 yard FG that could have been blocked in a GT/FSU scenario.
The 67 yard FG will go down with the Michigan fake FG after a TO call as the two worst in Beamer's history.
The play calling during the ECU game, the hey, lets run Motley up the middle again for no gain. Between that game, Duke, and UNC we could have been 9 and 3, though we could have just as easily gone 4-8
Not sure how it looked to everyone on TV, but sitting in the stands that day, I honestly thought we didn't run Motley enough. After the first few minutes of the game, it was so very, very rainy and wet that spreading out the offense and letting the QB survey the field, pick a lane, and run a draw was by far the most effective play either team could run. Unfortunately ECU executed this better than us and their QB had 169 yards rushing. After the first quarter, there were only a few brief periods where the rain slowed enough to make passing very easy (one of those periods was our last TD drive and then unfortunately the rain picked up again before our drive to attempt to tie the game).
Moment(s) - Our inability to stop a QB run, designed or not.
Why Our O-Line couldn't pick up a stunt.
Why Loefler couldn't make an adjustment until the second half when French had already explained what to do in the pre-game analyses.
Miami game.
Calling timeouts when on defense at the end of the first quarter of the Miami game when Miami was content to run-out the clock. We had captured momentum and Miami had demonstrated themselves to be a big play threat against us - if we let them run out the clock we go into the locker room with game tied and the momentum.
Instead, we call those timeouts, force Miami into a passing play, and they end up scoring a touchdown. It was a game-turning set of decisions. If there was ever a time to play it conservative, it was that moment. It really felt like the coaches were coaching from a position of desperation at times this year - I think that translated into poor play / mistakes on the field.
I didn't have a problem with those decisions. The problem there was the dumb personal foul penalty that occurred after the conversion. Like you said, we had momentum, and it made sense to try to get the ball back. Normally Beamer does play conservative but this time he didn't, and I liked it. We just missed a couple assignments on the third down then gave up a dumb penalty so Miami had it easy after that.
That's just it...we had been making dumb mistakes and getting beat on deep balls...so, what do we do? We prolong the half so we can make more dumb plays and give up long plays and a TD and the lead. The first TO was a head screatcher, it started to look like it would work out due to Miami's dumb play, but then they have to try to throw it out of there, they make the play and we proceed to "out-dumb" them right on down the field and give up 7. We got the ball the 2nd half...Miami was basically conceding us a turnover in a tie game and we wouldn't accept it! And no, it's not 2nd guessing. I was dreading a last minute Kaaya drive but saw them run it and breathed a sigh of relief...UNTIL I saw "timeout VT" and I thought oh no, please no!
I still like those timeouts. We've seen it in the past, get them to punt, get a decent return, complete a pass or two, steal a FG.
In this situation, remember they had a false start to begin the drive. 58 seconds left. TO after a run of 2 yards. 2nd and 13. TO after a run of 4 yards, 3rd and 9....unsportsmanlike penalty on Miami makes it 3rd and 20 from their 11 yard line! Those aren't bad TO's at all. It's a tie game. 41 seconds left, if we get an incomplete pass on 3rd down, we get the ball near mid field with 30+ seconds left.
THIS. I was yelling at the tv like "WHY ARE WE CALLING TIMEOUTS." Best case scenario we were getting the ball back with like 35-40secs left after being lucky to be tied after all of the offensive mistakes. Sidenote, I remember our offense was able to move up and down on Miami all day but we just couldn't get out of our own way from terrible mistakes, that's what I look forward to under Fuente is the hope of finally getting out of our own way and capitalizing when were playing well
Agree...it was the first TO that ticked me off. We're playing the best QB in conference with a young depleted secondary. The situation says we take the tie and are content to go in at half BECAUSE WE GET THE BALL TO START 2nd! Miami was basically conceding us a turnover more or less!
Once we called the first TO and they had the penalties and we stopped them on 2nd down, then of course you call another one because you're committed to trying to get it back. I'd have never called the first one, and no it's not second guessing, I was screaming at the TV "WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?, just take the tie and get the ball to start the 2nd. If we'd done that AND then NOT asked Motley to throw on 1st down inside the Miami 25 when we were gashing them with the run, we'd have taken the lead 17-10 or 13-10, instead we'd given up the TD AND Motley threw the pick ON FIRST DOWN in the red zone and we continued to have to play catch-up when we should've been leading.
The situational coaching and play calling vs Miami is my #1 head scratcher. Crazy thing is 4 of our 6 losses were by 7 or less yet the Miami game feels like we handed that one over on a silver platter even though it ended up being a 10 pt final (remember we'd cut it to 3 then Miami horse collars Dadi with no holding call on a what ended up being a 40 yd kick-starter of a pass play for their clinching TD).
Ugh...I'm up at 4 AM with heartburn and decided to read a bit on here..,rehashing that didn't help the heartburn!!
1. Playing Brewer, but bringing in Motley to run a very, very, predictable play.
"oh hey, they're bringing in Motley... makes sense because Brewer is hot, but hey...lemme guess, they're gonna have Motley run it for no gain. yup."
2. RB rotation in the earlier part of the season.
3. Clock management against Duke. ...seriously, just...what??
I feel like, as an above average fan whose football IQ isn't all that great, if I can see these things...why can't/haven't the coaches? Or if they have, I guess I just need a breakdown of why they did these things or continued to do things. I need an insider's perspective I suppose.
Putting Deon Clarke as an extra D-lineman in the Bear Defense and having Duke, ECU, BC run right up the middle.
Motley coming in after Brewer was back once or twice a game and run the "wild cat" to "throw off the defense" when everyone knew he was always gonna run it. Always tackled for a lose, then Brewer comes in.
My most head scratching / frustrating 2015 moments would be
1 Starting and continuing to play Stroman at CB against ECU
2 the OT play calling against UNC
3 never adjusting to the pass rush against Pitt (screen/roll out/anything)
4 lack of pass rush / sacks from front 4
5 clock management vs duke, no excuse for running clock in regulation
6 bone headed procedure/ offsides penalties, way too many this year
7 returning kickoffs out of the end zone to the 15 yd line over and over
The sh*tstorm for me was the so called "running back by committee" ran by little Beamer and agreed to by Lefty for all those first 4 games.
The only time I've agreed with sharing the rock like that was when The Untouchables were around. Dem boys can runs...
Via hokiesports
and yet that was only 2 not 8. 8 is considered a mob not a committee
The inability of fans to give credit where credit is due
that's not really a head-scratcher. That is kind of a given....you'll get that anywhere.
It is a head scratcher because I don't understand why it has to be that way.
Sticking with Stroman as the PR guy all year. I know he looked better in the last couple of games and has good PR abilities, but he looked really bad to me for the first 2/3ish of the season, fair catching balls inside the 10 and catching balls then running backwards.
Oh goodness I can't believe I forgot this.
THIS!!!
Said this in the offseason!
"commented 5 months 3 days ago | reply
Stroman needs to be more careful with the ball on returns. I know everyone is excited about this guy with the ball in his hands but there and at least a dozen plays I could show you from last year where we would have been better off with a knee in the endzone or a fair catch (rewatch Duke game, that was the one that really jumped out at me.)"
I'll just pick a big picture issue - the wild inconsistency in each unit over the course of the season. Perhaps the defense eventually stabilized but they had wild swings throughout. The offense was week to week, and even by the end was making the same execution mistakes we saw early on. Attribute both to coaching and players, plenty of responsibility to go around.
For me, it was the repeated jet sweep handoffs from the shotgun AND the insistence from Shane to attempt to get Coleman & Edmunds into a rhythm (which, unfortunately, they did not). I felt by the 3rd/4th game we needed to ride the hot hand (McMillan) the rest of the way.
I can definitely agree or how we would always try to convert 3rd and 1 or 2 from the shotgun and not the i formation.
I think they burned it because they didn't think Motley was going to play as good as they anticipated. Did he play great? No, but he had his moment, and overall I think they coaches thought he played above expectations.
.After approximately 34826378452 bad decisions, we still let stroman field punts.....
He will run one back in bowl game...book it
Dadi intentionally hitting a ref.
Really you think he intentionally hit him?
I do. He should not have been within 10 yards of him at that moment.
Absolutely.
yes. Worse yet, I think he tried to set it up as an accident. It seemed premeditated.
Completely disagree with y'all. As several beat writers pointed out he is an animated talker, with moves his arms and hands around a lot when talking, in fact he has knocked a recorder out of a reporters hands during an interview. That is what happened here.
I don't think it was intentional, and I don't believe Ron Cherry thought so either. I think that's the only reason he didn't get tossed. Think about it. When have we gotten a break from the refs?
How can you honestly watch this and believe it is unintentional? I'm sorry, but I just don't see it that way. If you watch the lead up, he's swinging his arm around hip level. As he approaches the ref he has to make a concerted effort to swing his arm at a much higher elevation in order to make contact with the refs arm. He even has his head positioned such that he must be looking right at the refs arm. I doubt very seriously that he's just walking around with his eyes closed. It's tough to keep your balance when you're swinging your arms around with your eyes closed. Try it sometime.
Also, he doesn't seem to react at all to the fact he just hit a solid object in a manner that suggests he didn't know the solid object was there. Most people will recoil or jerk their head to look at what they just hit in surprise immediately after they hit something without realizing it. Dadi follows through with his swing and keeps walking like nothing happens. Then he tries to look surprised when the ref throws his flag. I don't buy it. This was intentional all the way.
This Vine is not full speed. If you watch the full speed video that shows the few seconds before he hits Cherry, he makes the same animated motion before he gets close to him. He's obviously emotional and is pumping his arms in a show of emotion as he yells. Don't think he meant it. And I stand by it.
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:14185307
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Even at full speed it looks intentional to me. I'm pretty sure if we saw a UVA player do the exact same thing we would all be in agreement that it was completely intentional.
Not really, we debated whether timecop hit Stroman.
I haven't seen the video of the alleged incident between Stroman and London so I cannot comment on it. I will wager that it is completely different from Dadi hitting the official.
Not sure it is really. London, being emotional, jumped up and down and at the very least pushed Stroman. It's certainly not with the same force from Dadi's incident, but I fully believe that a coach hitting a player is much worse than a player hitting a ref. Unless of course it's the incident from out in Texas where the coach told the players to spear the referee in the back. But coaches are held to a far higher standard than the players.
I think we're straying off topic a bit. Again, I haven't seen the London-Stroman incident so I can't really comment on it. It looked like Dadi hit the ref intentionally. That is how I see it without O&M glasses on. He was penalized and subsequently suspended for the first half of the UVA game. I think we can probably move on now. We're only going to see Dadi in Maroon and Orange one more time and I'd rather celebrate his career than debate his intentions when he drew a personal foul penalty for hitting (by mistake or not) a ref. That is such a small fraction of the things he has done here at VT. He has been a good DE for us and I'm going to miss his fire and motor.
Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left.
Holy over-analysis Batman. Dadi gets too emotional at times. He was gesticulating wildly and Ron Cherry just happened to be in Dadi's swing radius. Cherry looks at him and sees that he is just over-reacting emotionally, not purposefully trying to hit him. Plus, he heard the "tantrum" that culminated in Dadi hitting his arm. As was stated above, Cherry only gave him a personal foul, he didn't toss him. Cherry was there, we were just watching from the stands or on television. He was in a much better position to gauge Dadi's intent, and he clearly thought it was unintentional.
Because he had his eyes closed he was so mad he didn't even see him?
That's the only explanation for it being unintentional
The one that came in a close second for me (check out my #1 above) is the fact that the closest ABC store to my house never seemed to have Buffalo Trace on the shelf during the season... C'mon man!
The "Stroman is moving full-time to offense" announcement followed by him starting two weeks later at DB.
Also Calvin Kline's absence. Seems to me he is a perfect sub to give Bucky a rest when he was visibly exhausted.
Yeah...Kalvin Cline? Where the heck was he all year? I saw him catch maybe two passes all year. Hurt or not making it to enough practices/meetings due to VTCC requirements?
I'm calling it now. Cline will have a monster year in 2016. Bucky will try to take the top off/deep outs and seams. Cline will be perfectly fit for the underneath stuff in Fuente's system.
Does Fuente use any 2-3 TE sets in his system (getting excited if so)??
The VTCC would never require Cline to miss a football commitment for a Corps function. We had football players and athletes in other sports while I was in the Corps and having an athletic activity was considered an authorized absence the same as an academic activity. The only reason the Corps would restrict him from participating in a non-VTCC activity is if his grades were bad, which would be a problem for football too so I don't think that's the case (and in no way am I trying to imply that Cline's grades are bad, just for clarity).
Of course, in all fairness, it's possible things have changed in the 16 years since I was a cadet, but I doubt it. Having athletes (particularly high-profile athletes) in the Corps is good press for the Corps, and restricting participation in sports would be bad for Corps recruiting as well. One of my buds was a non-scholarship player on the women's soccer team and she got to miss most of Cadre Week (our 1-week "basic training" period for freshmen) when we were freshmen to go to soccer practices. If they didn't restrict a walk on for the women's soccer team from going to practice, they aren't going to restrict a potential football star.
I'm not really trying to rant in your general direction, GoKart, I've just seen speculation that we haven't seen Cline because of the Corps posted around TKP a few times and am trying to nip it in the bud.
God's Gift doesn't get tired.
Any of Greg Stroman's punt returns.
Even the several 20+ yarders?
Even the rugby kicks he fielded that saved us 20 yds of field position?
He tried to do too much quite often, but Idk if we blocked a gunner all year
1) It's hyperbole.
2) He averaged a whopping 4 yards/return. That was 54th out of 59th for qualified returners.
3) I have a feeling he had more returns for negative yards than he did for 20+ yards.
4) If no one is blocked, call for a fair catch rather than catch it and run backwards and put a bad offense in even worse shape.
How the OT TD by UNC was ruled a catch.
That's ok. To me, justice was exacted this past Sat night. World keeps turning.
Defending the qb run......against every team
The entire Duke game was a major head scratcher. I've never felt so dejected losing a game since the 2006 Peach Bowl loss to Georgia.
You felt more dejected from the 06 Peach Bowl than the 07 BC game in the rain?!?!?
...he who shall not be named here.... fuck him!!!!!!!!
That memory lies in the deathly hallows
The continued inability to recruit top linebackers.
So after reading through this a few times and thinking about it I figured out what my moment was. When fans started streaming for the exits against UNC, Frank Beamers last home game, I don't care if it was a 62-0 beating you stay in the stands to honor Frank. Then when the team came back to tie it and people tried to come back in and were turned away it was sweet justice.
did they really turn people away? Ice cold, that is.
Some gates did, I'm glad they did, if you can't stay for Frank's last game you don't deserve to see a comeback.
Yea, I couldn't believe the mass exodus either. In my eyes, it was completely disrespectful and I completely agree with you