I keep hearing "Recruiting Recruiting Recruiting" and frankly, I am a bit frustrated with it. While I would like to see bigger, stronger, fast guys across the board (as would every team in the country), talent evaluation and player development to me is a bigger concern. Too many guys (especially on defense) didn't improve. I don't know who to cast blame on that- those kids not putting in the work, poor culture cultivated by the team leaders and staff, or the scheme. VT isn't just getting their butt kicked in recruiting- lately talent evaluation and especially player development seems to have fallen off.
Look to the southeast for some startling reality. North Carolina (yes their kids don't go to class yack yack yack) was Fedora not giving Elijah Hood the football vs South Carolina away from being neck and neck with Clemson in the ACCCG for the right to play for a National Championship game. The Hokies played UNC valiantly. That being said, when you watched the game, I bet you, like I, kept thinking to yourself "man, this is going to be tough. UNC has weapons everywhere." The Hokies stymied UNC for long stretches, but when they got going THEY MADE IT LOOK EASY. Hood, Davis, Switzer, Hollins, Howard, Logan, and keep going down the line. They had so many weapons! On D, they gave up a ton of yardage, however they did enough to win without bringing their safeties down in the box. The were big, strong, and fast up front. I walked away spinning it in my own head "Fedora is an idiot (and I still think he is on gameday.) UNC won this one on talent, but VT outworked them."
Now for reality. Fedora took over a program on shaky ground. His classes since being hired are pretty comparable to VT in terms of ratings (per 24/7) are comparable. Yet, at least from a talent perspective, UNC's kids looked like the better unit on the field and it took an inspired comeback to make it a game.
2012 UNC National 43/ ACC 7
2013 UNC National 28/ACC 5
2014 UNC National 31/ACC 5
2015 UNC National 28/ACC 4
2015 UNC National 35/ACC 6
2012 VT National 21/ ACC 4
2013 VT National 21/ACC 4
2014 VT National 27/ACC 4
2015 VT National 29/ACC 5
2015 VT National 41/ACC 8
To he and his staff's credit, Fedora has developed players, especially on the offensive side of the football. Outside of Hood, Davis, and the tackle Bentley, UNC's guys are three star guys.
I hope Fuente can do the same thing- but this tired narrative of "closers" "package deals" "pipelines" and "we have to recruit *here*" need to stop. For this program, Fuente and his staff must do a better job than the previous staff at finding guys that fit their systems and then make them better. That starts with having upperclassmen that play better as seniors than they did as sophomores. That starts in these S&C sessions.
It can happen and UNC is proof. It doesn't take top 10 recruiting every cycle. It does take great talent evaluation and teaching. For a long time, I thought that was a strong point of the program. My confidence has been shaken in the last 12 months.
Comments
I've heard from #sources (serious ones) that the old S&C didn't hold guys to their standards and key players missing workouts or not completeing them was a normal occurance. I look at the number of injuries we have had. It's not just S&C but injury prevention too. I'm glad he's gone, and I can't think of his name for the life of me.
As to your point of developing players I think you are spot on. Easy snapshot of this is Harbaugh at Michigan. He took Brady Hoke's guys and make them and 8-9 win team this year. Two (I think, at least against MSU) of those losses were heart breakers and shouldn't have happened. So one could argue they should have had at least 10 wins this season. But the point is he stopped the bleeding from Michigan football in less than a year and without a recruiting class of his own. Hopefully we see some similar results at VT with Fuente and staff. I'm not expecting us to win every game this year but if we are in the running for the ACCCG I'll be happy.
P.S. when does spring practice start?
Michigan State- for me that is a model for what I want our program to look like. Irony is, VT was a model for Michigan State. Similar recruiting profile and a school that built it's foundation on winning the line of scrimmage and hammering people defensively.
I'm on record for several years now, complaining that our guys have gone soft. I think it started around 2008-2009, and has just gotten worse. That's on the staff. There were games, especially during the 2012 season, where it looked like the Hokies didn't care. (Looking at you, Cincinnati game). There have many games since, where the Hokies looked like the teams that the Hokies used to throat punch in the late 90's early 00's.
Maybe Fuente's guys will bring back that "punch in and go to work" vibe. I think that's vital to rebuilding this team.
And yes, comparison to UNC... Absolutely. Preach it. I've always heard that Fedora is a BIG time believer in the training till you puke philosophy.
After hearing Scott tonight, it's safe to say that those days are over.
Could you expand on that?
He is an intense guy. I don't foresee emotionless games with this new staff in place. He also loves the new S&C coach and says the workouts have been rough. Young, hungry blood has come to VT football.
Great to hear. Thanks for the info!
Coach Vice gave a similar message tonight -- friendly in tone, but clear that the intensity of S&C was changing, and some guys needed to get used to a new way of doing things. "But they'll learn."
This comment isn't directed at anyone in particular...just adding to the thought here.
I find it interesting that everyone is piling on the old S&C staff. It may be warranted, it may not. I have no idea, really. I want to single out Ford here. He worked his tail off in the off season to add muscle and improve his endurance. That work paid dividends. He transformed himself into one of the more dangerous WR threats in the ACC. My question is this. Did he know what to do and how to do it in order to reach his goals or did he have guidance along the way? Was there somebody pushing him or did he just come up with everything on his own?
I understand that it's possible he formulated a work-out regimen on his own or modeled it off of something outside our program but I think it is just as likely that everything came from in-house. It may not have been an issue with the S&C staff so much as the general attitude or culture of the players. I guess you could argue that they go hand-in-hand but if Ford was motivated to transform himself and was able to do it successfully why couldn't anyone else?
All I'm saying is that maybe the S&C coach(es) / program wasn't the real problem. You know that saying, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Well if you bring in a bunch of soft players and ask the S&C coach to turn them into mean hard-nosed monsters what are the odds at success? Maybe our S&C program grew soft. Maybe the players we were getting were just soft. Maybe it's a combination of the two. I don't think that the problems this program has had over the last half decade can be attributed to any one person or thing. Blame can and should probably be spread fairly evenly across the board.
I'm hoping that the influx of new and young coaches whom are hungry for success will give this program the jolt it needs. I feel that VT football stagnated a bit over the last few years. The energy and intensity needs a shot in the arm. I just don't know if we can blame the lackluster attitude/culture solely on the S&C program, or any individual for that matter.
I don't think its directed at S&C in particular but it was definately a part of the problem. I doubt Ford came up with his own workouts to do. However, was he in the weight room more often? Was he asking for what to do in improving speed and strength together. But if for the most part the TEAM wasn't busting their ass in S&C because no one was holding them accountable then there is a problem there. Ford can be a straight beast, which he is, but him alone won't win us football games. I'm sure Sam Rogers wasn't one to skimp on workouts either. Everyone has great praise for how hard Juice and Shai work to get healthy. It's up to the individuals to do the actual work but if no one is keeping them accountable then those that aren't pushing themselves don't help the team.
Again, I don't think S&C was the sole problem for our woes the past few years, but it was definitely a contributing factor. I'm glad there is change there. It's nice to hear this change from the new coaches too.
There seems to be little doubt that the Hokie teams of recent years looked a lot less tough than those of the so-called glory days, and at least a share of the blame has to lay at the feet of the S&C crew.
It seems to me that the argument isn't about the old S&C coaches being unable to design a proper workout regimen, but that they didn't hold players accountable. If a young man was driven to work harder and improve, like Isaiah Ford, they obviously were able to help him do that. But players who weren't as motivated might not have been pushed. The proverbial horse that doesn't want to drink needs to feel the negative consequences, and it's not clear that that was the case.
It can be a delicate balancing act, to train these guys hard and develop them into the best athletes they can be without overdoing it and either chasing them off, or God forbid, getting someone hurt or killed. I don't envy the job these guys have to do and don't think that the really good ones get nearly enough credit.
It's ironic you picked out Ford for your example, because while you're right that he did get stronger, he has been one of the main players talking about how much more intense the S&C sessions have been than ever before. I've heard several players echo this sentiment that the intensity and accountability is higher than ever and several recruits stated the players told them the same thing also. The thing is, it's not "piling on" the old staff, it's just true apparently.
ummmmmm... this is awkward, i've posted this a couple of times trying to say this so much
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwq8dfTxm_4
this is alabama S&C
I should have known it would be a Cajun. See they were right on the water boy after all! But in all seriousness dude is a live wire. I like it.The last interview I heard from Billy Hite before he retired was when he discussed turning a lot of the 3-star guys into 5 stars. He also talked about how much easier it was to develop the 3-star guys. There was definitely something missing in the last 5-6 years esecially in terms of development.
I'm hoping that the coaching change will make an impact in terms of development.
I don't like the UNC example, they played a cupcake schedule and didn't look very good when they faced good teams. I think a more apt comparison is TCU, not only because Fuente is a Gary Patterson product, but because their on the field product is so successful with classes that are largely worse than VT historically.
They went toe to toe with the 2nd best team in the country and they blasted three teams (Pitt, Miami, and Duke) that moved the ball all over VT and beat them into stuffing. They played the same conference schedule (except for BC) and went undefeated.
I watched the UNC game, I didn't think UNC played particularly well but rather Clemson made repeated bone headed mistakes (player ejected, fake punt etc..) to their credit they kept the game close but I don't think anyone thought they were a playoff caliber team based on their on field performance. If your point is UNC won the coastal with comparable talent so we can too then sure but that was never really in doubt we have basically been doing that for the last 15 years (sans the last 4 seasons obviously). But if we are gonna be a program that does more with less lets strive to be the Baylor or TCU of the ACC.
Regarding your other points North Carolina may have developed their talent better but they have also recruited far better in terms of who they actually sign and not rankings. VT got into trouble in the first place because the 2010-2011 classes were short on offensive lineman and offensive talent in general. North Carolina's first and second string QB were 4* recruits, five out of their six wide receivers are upperclassman that played receiver in HS, three of them were high 3* or higher.
Virginia Tech's first and second string QB were both 3* star guys. At receiver we have 2 2* guys, a converted Corner back, and one receiver(Knowles) . Isiah Ford and Cam Phillips from the 2014 class are by far the highest rated WR on our roster but also some of the youngest especially compared to the 2 deep at UNC which only has one sophomore.
My point being that North Carolina may have developed talent better, but you also have to acknowledge that they have done a much better job at recruiting than VT (at least for 2 key offensive positions). There was obviously a huge gap in terms of talent at QB and WR between the two teams in 2015 regardless of where the they ended up in the final standings. We have to recruit better, especially offensively and I think the last three classes have gone a long way in rectifying that side of the ball.
That UNC team was/is FULL of kids that VT wanted. Our recruiting rankings are similar, but they got more kids we wanted than vice versa. We did a good job of getting our 2nd choice kids.
There is also a big school bias to rankings that even benefits VT. 4 years ago, a VT offer was more valuable than a UNC offer. It's subtle, but our own past success has muddied the waters of our rankings.
French is right, they are recruiting to their system better. But it's also true that they have more kids we wanted and that, comparatively, VTs kids are overrated.
They just recruited better offensively period. We didn't sign a single WR last year, they signed 4. We got into this problem in part because of misses on the recruiting trail
Seriously?
wrong reply
I have a quick comment:
Everyone complained about not having enough recruiting staff but then bitches that some staff took paycuts?
Where were we supposed to get the money from? If I understood correctly the VT football program was not at liberty/have the ability to spend a TON of money.
That would be a good thought except money allocated to coach pay was left on the table.
Side note:
Didn't they say Hokie Club money was NOT going to salaries? Could it indirectly go to that by mitigating cost away from other areas?
Exactly, Hokie Club money could also be used for more scholarships in other sports, better facilities etc. this freeing up increased revenue from this sports and facilities to pay for better coaches salaries.
Time to donate then. i'll get on it now
Welcome to the Hokie Club, find if you live somewhere with a active local chapter.
I'm in DC/Arlington now Hokies are everywhere
:D
Our Football program revenue is one of the largest in the ACC, but our recruiting budget is middling at best I posted this elsewhere but to get a better idea
SCHOOL / CONF. / FB RECRUITING $ / %CHANGE '09-'13 / $ PER WIN
Clemson / ACC /$617,524 / 35.9% / $52,702
Florida State / ACC /$425,796 / 50.6% / $34,219
Georgia Tech / ACC /$746,590 / -8.2% / $95,925
Louisville / ACC /$208,778 / -23.8% / $25,176
North Carolina / ACC /$539,392 / 3.2% / $76,074
North Carolina State /ACC /$514,380 / 44.9% / $53,291
Virginia / ACC /$299,730 / -4.2% / $59,604
Virginia Tech /ACC /$353,983 / 98.7% / $30,800
The startling fact here is that despite an almost 100% increase were still one of the lower spenders per win. I can only imagine the numbers during those 10 win seasons
I think that the success with a lower revenue was more a product of successfully recruiting VA (and getting lucky that such great players came out of the area). MV7 and Tyrod are the perfect examples, although of course there are plenty of other players that were in the trenches during those years.
Part luck, part dedication to recruiting that area, and definitely no longer "enough" since other schools have caught on.
Not trying to be a dick, but unformated data makes my head hurt.
Hey Joe, any way to add a handy-dandy table button up there with the image, link, etc buttons?
I totally agree....that would be awesome
When you made this table did you just write it inside a '<' 'table' '>' tag?
warning, ME trying to do computer things. It will work, but not elegantly or efficiently.
I copied the original post into excel. Text to columns delimited by "/" (that's for that OP, btw). Then googled "convert csv to html table" and just dropped my excel stuff into that and it spit out the table. Then I looked at the page source on one of the headline articles that used tables to get the right class. By the way, you can view source on this page and look at how to get the right formatting.
Oh. Smart.
I was always trying to inline style inside the table tag. Now I get why that doesnt work, I dont know why I didnt think there would be classes already established.
Im about to go NUTS with tables...
WOOOOOOOO. LETS. GET. TROPICAL!
Edit: For those interested, the table class is 'blog_statistics'
Just thought I would throw this out there.....its the most recent relevant statistics for each of the incoming quarterbacks by a per game basis, thought it was interesting.
Something to note: Almost all of Jackson's stats were only in the first half as he was taken out of the majority of second half blowouts.
Also, and more importantly, these stats are completely irrelevant and mean absolutely nothing but rather I just wanted an excuse to follow my main man hokie07ME's table strategy.
LETS. GET. TROPICAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Im HYPED by this newly discovered table class.
My word... I know the competition for each school is different, and the opponents skill set for each of those number sets is different, but this might not be as much of a competition as I thought. Evans numbers are mind boggling.
This table is awesome. Thanks for the work it took putting it together!
I completely agree about the player development. It is unrealistic to think we are going to start landing a boatload of 5* talent every year. But it's not the elite, cream-of-the-crop misses that are most concerning with recruiting. The overlooked, next tier down guys we used to depend on are being recruited more heavily now. We are sometimes down to our 3rd, 4th, and 5th options at various positions when signing day comes, and we are left scrambling for depth. Also, those under the radar guys are now being discovered thanks to technology, and recruiting has become way more competitive for them. I understand losing top recruits to the FSUs, Bamas, OSUs etc of the world. But we are losing in-state guys and a lot of our targets to Duke, UNC, and Pitt now. Those guys used to be the bread and butter of our program, and we can't even land them consistently.
So yes, I agree player development and evaluation must improve significantly. But we have to get more serious on the recruiting front. The 1990s are gone, and this fast-paced modern college football environment isn't going anywhere.
Frank Beamer allowed the entire program to stagnate, from the top down.
Not a knock on Frank personally, he was a hell of a coach. But the fire, intensity, accountability and attention to detail evaporated over the last four years. We were going through the motions, even after shaking up the coaching staff when O'Cain and Newsome were released and Stinespring demoted. The problem post-Leoffler hire wasn't that we had bad coaches, it was that we were on cruise control.
I hate to say this, but expect to see more attrition, in terms of players and perhaps even more coaches. We are experiencing culture change at VT, and Fuente's intensity is not going to sit well with some people. Especially not people who are accustomed to being able to mail it in. I think we're about to witness the wheat being separated from the chaff.
Only two coaches left on staff to attrite.
Bud, Charley, and Zohn make 3. Or did someone else leave that I never heard about?
Maybe the thought here is that Zohn is so young and new to the staff that he's not lumped into the "old guard" ?
I would not lay all that on Frank. He asked for and was rejected for recruiting staff. It wasn't until recently that they started to add recruiting positions.
Jim Weaver (may he rest in peace) certainly played a role in the stagnation. From a recruiting standpoint, Jim basically kneecapped the program thanks to his accountant's mindset. However, I firmly believe the post-2011 decline reaches much further than recruiting failures. In general, the intensity of the program waned from the top down. It affected every aspect of the program, from recruiting, to strength and conditioning, to practices, to individual player effort during games (and not being benched or reprimanded for taking plays off). That's one reason I think Fuente can have relatively quick success with the current roster, so long as we have more players with the work ethic of Isaiah Ford and Sam Rogers, who can pick up the gauntlet.
Again, I don't think this is an issue of it being Frank's "fault" as I think it was a matter of being Frank's time.
I have a lot of respect for Weaver and what he did to help build the program to what it is, and if Frank liked the guy, I like the guy.
But its really becoming apparent, especially lately, just how much he kneecapped our success by blockading much needed resources. Heck if you look at the hires Whit has made and the advancements of the staffs, in two years...lets just put it like this: a school as prominent as Virginia Tech should have never been so ill-equipped, ever.
I agree, recruiting can help cover weak spots, but the on field product will improve most when we get a better handle on developing our talent. As the on field product gets better, we will likely do better on the recruiting trail, maybe some of those big misses become wins. But even so, we will need to continue to develop that talent. Looking forward to seeing if the new staff light that fire and develop these players. Reinvigorate a stagnant program.
< WhyNotBoth.gif >
I get what you're saying, but this one statement leaves me somewhat perplexed: My confidence has been shaken in the last 12 months. A new Sheriff is in town with a new paradigm. He gets it and has experience in what most likely was a much more chaotic situation at Memphis four years ago. Why lament the past? What happened over 11 of the last 12 months only counts so much going forward because that Sheriff was not yet in control. I'd wager the the staff have already laid it out to the players that the last few years stunk, change must take place, and a good part of that change will be to work harder and smarter. The players probably get that too and if they don't have been informed that the door is nearby. IMHO, the vast influence you have built with us fans is best wielded as a positive force, not to fuel doubt, because a lot of the narrative you mentioned is not much more than coach speak. From all I read, your comments included, that's the message I got from yesterday. I'm optimistic about what comes in the next few years.
I think the difference with UNC compared to VT with last year's success was the QB play in Williams. I really liked Brewer and there is no tougher QB I've seen, but UNC's success was due their QB's ability to make plays, similar to Clemson. A good RB and some speedy receivers just made them a juggernaut.
Exactly. I don't think it is a coincidence that our slide began when we went away from mobile QB's, and I am not talking about using LT as a battering ram. How many times did we see a Vick, Randall, Taylor scramble for a first down on 3rd and 5? Think about how many close games we have lost over the past few years...with a mobile QB scrambling for a few more first downs in those games, we would've won many of them, and we'd still be winning at least 8 or 9 games a year.
One could counter (and many have) that with good OL recruiting, a mobile QB would be an extra weapon, not a necessity. If the only way you can win is to have a QB like Tyrod running for his life all game, then there are obviously problems that need fixing. I think the Clemson model, where Deshawn Watson can kill you with his legs, but doesn't really need to, is a much better recipe for success. (see also VT in the Michael Vick era)
I 100% agree with this. Cam Newton had this amazing season because he was an added threat on the ground, not the only threat. A mobile QB would be great, but it needs a strong O-line and a good running game to be truly effective.
Mobile QBs are powerful weapons, but not a panacea for our recent decline.
What about starting Travon a little earlier in the season? That might have helped Brewer a little bit. He might have been short on athletic ability but he made up for it with toughness and leadership. He had OSU down in the first half. Second half Augie wiffs and Brewer is done. Poorly developed depth at QB and BS RB rotation doomed us.
You make two assumptions. The first is that Motley was a poorly developed QB which did not seem to be the case in the following games he started. The second is that McMillian was just as good at the end of the season as he was at the beginning which is unlikely. This was his first season on the field at the collegiate level at a position he did not play in high school.
I agree that the QB development piece was an assumption and could really boil down to recruiting as well. However, I disagree that TM starting earlier in the season was a poor assumption. I grant you that "starting" may be a poor word choice in my part but certainly 15 carries a game was warranted. it was clear he was the only back with the speed and vision combination to anything on a sweep. I do fault the coaches for not recognizing and exploiting that aspect. Falls under playing to your strengths.
The coaches said repeatedly that McMillian wasn't playing as much earlier because he didn't have a full grasp on the position. If he was coming in to just do the same thing over and over, opposing coaches would immediately pick up on the fact that he wasn't in to block or catch a pass. It would negate his ability because the offense would be tipping their hand completely if he's a one-trick pony.
Like Stroman on the jet sweep? I see your point on what the coaches said but you have to admit there is an advantage to having someone who can move the chains in the game when we were rotating backs every SINGLE play! That is not hyperbole. (Ok maybe a little) I physically witnessed it on multiple series in the first 3 games. We over complicated the running game when we had the talent to do better than we did. That's all I am saying. IMO, if the scheme is too complicated to run the ball with the best talent, then simplify it!
A lot going on here. You won't hear much of an argument from me about the overall rotation, though it gets overblown somewhat. But what you have to keep in mind is that the sum total of McMillian's experience at RB was basically a year on the scout team. He still just didn't have the skills to do everything he needed to. But the Stroman point you bring up largely makes my point for me. Bringing in one player, to do one thing, usually spells doom. Stroman broke a couple of decent runs, but was largely bottled up because when the opponent saw him, there was no mystery. After a game or two of only ever running with McMillian, it would have been the same thing.
That's not a knock on the kid; he developed into an outstanding RB by year's end. But everything we heard was simply that he was still learning on the job. He picked it up by mid-way and never looked back. But to think that he simply should have been playing more based on raw talent at one task is just hindsight bias and assumption.
It takes talent and development. The biggest thing I've seen lacking the last several years is "nasty". We need a little mean streak to get back that old swagger. Whatever happened to our talented d-line is baffling, and I think the coaches should absolutely be held accountable at least in part.
So we have been bad at getting talented kids on campus and we are bad at developing the talent we do get on campus
That's.... Swell
Yeah, I fully expect two years of potential, actually probable, sub .500 seasons. I just hope rise up after it.
Holy double post.
Double post?
Two seasons of sub .500 ball? I'm sorry, but that is the most pessimistic scenario possible, we have too much talent to go under .500 for the next two years and the fanbase would likely be fed up Fuente and co. after year two if that were to happen.
It would be disappointing, but it's also not unreasonable. We were one loss away from such seasons for the past two years. Now we're legitimately in "the rebuilding period" which means anything can happen in the transition.
By no means am I saying that Fuente should go if we go sub .500, but that is what I'm anticipating. Admittedly, I am a bit of a pessimistic fan though. Comes from only rooting for teams that aren't successful.
Previous recruiting class rankings:
41 29 21 21 36 34 24 20 26 32 21 35 28 43 16 37
I think it's pretty clear. Our recruiting demise of recent years can be summerized by an improper overexagerattion of previous years recruiting classes.
I think everyone just needs to take a breather. Bud Foster is still Bud Foster. And Justin Fuente still looks like the day 1 great hire.
Something to cheer up about. At least we aren't Houston. Super Recruitor Tom Herman had a bunch of last minute flips turning a top 20 class to out of the top 40. Now that must have been a tough day for them as well.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/houston-s-tom-herman-des...
Herman lets the fax machine know how he feels.
That's awesome.
I hate how the article has to have a caveat "If you don't know what office space is. Here's the clip from the actual movie" If you haven't seen office space ...grow up.
When do you start to feel like you're getting old they ask?. 27. The answer is 27. When you start sitting in the east stands because you think. Phew. It's a long game to stand up the whole time. And when Sharkys goes from your favorite bar to your least favorite and you always find yourself saying 'ughhh. It's so crowded in here' I wish they would turn that music down.....
You need to improve your game time standing strategy. Timeouts, breaks between quarters, TV timeouts - these are the opportunities to catch a breather, sit for a bit, have a sip of smuggled bourbon (with or without your preferred mixer) and then pop up and cheer when things go back to live action.
As for Sharkey's - to borrow a phrase: They jumped the shark when they moved into the new building. I understand why the owners did it (opportunity to own the building vs pay rent, larger space) but it completely changed the feel.
I'd bump your 'too old' number to a nice round 30 but I came to VT as a grad student so I didn't even arrive until I was 28.
Man I love Tom Herman. Dude's awesome.
He apparently got a grill too.
It's not so much the class ranking people are speaking towards but misses on the recruiting trail, you look back at the 2010-2011 classes and we had a real lack of talent on the offensive side of the ball. We signed one OL in 2011 for instance.
I'm curious.
Has there been a difference in player development on each side of the ball?
Had the defensive players not developed as much as the offensive players or vice versa?
Or was this relative to the initial talent level the staff had to work with?
FWIW Wiggins said last tonight that Texas made a big time push for Evans, but that at the end of the day he wanted to be a Hokie.
Evans is such a critical player for this team the next two years. And really, the future of the program is up for interpretation the next two years.
I remember Texas fan sites reporting this as well. Right after they went ballistic when they found out he was visiting Mizz and VT
You keep hearing recruiting, recruiting, recruiting because it is the foundation of college football. Frank set the goal of this program to win a NC. You don't win a NC without consistent years of top recruiting. It's not a concept, it's a fact. I don't think NC expectations are realistic in the foreseeable future, but when your HC is pushing that agenda the recruiting has to back it up.
If CJF and co. can develop average to somewhat good recruiting classes over the next couple of years, recruiting will get much better. Let's be honest, VT isn't one of the "blue bloods" of college football. It will take a winning culture to generate excitement for high school football players.
Expectations should be tempered just a bit. The next step isn't a National Title. The next step is competing for and winning the ACC Coastal division. UNC isn't going anywhere, Duke has been difficult and Miami is "back" (but aren't they every year?). Even if we get to the ACC Title Game in the next two years, we will face an extremely talented FSU or Clemson team.
This is not an indictment on Frank Beamer, but some things about the culture of VT Football need to change and that takes time. Once that happens and we begin to win again (like we are accustomed to), I think recruiting will take a big swing upwards.
I remember people criticized Whit and Beamer for saying the goal of the program was to win the Coastal, but an NC is so hard to get. To even play for one is a huge accomplishment. We need to be realistic and focus on goals we could reasonable achieve this season.
For me, a realistic expectation for this season is just staying competitive in the Coastal race. Winning would be great, but a coaching change makes everything harder. If we can stay in the picture right up to the end, I'd be happy.
I think this is reasonable. I would like to have hopes of an ACC Title game run into late October or even November. I'm not necessarily expecting that though. We have to be realistic. There are major changes taking place this off season which will throw everyone out of whack a bit. We don't have an established QB. I still have concerns with our O-line. Our DL and LB are potential huge liabilities and we just lost our ace DB coach. Bud has his work cut out for him. I'm not expecting much from our defense this year. I think with the cards Bud has been dealt, if he manages to field a top 40 defensive unit that may be one of the best coaching jobs he's ever done.
On the other side of the ball I think we're all foolish to expect drastic changes immediately. It took Fuente a couple of tough years at Memphis before the offense was really moving. Yeah, we have more talent than he started with in Memphis, but it's still going to take some building. I'd be SHOCKED if our offense gets into the top 50 this year. We're going to have a rocky couple of seasons. Our schedule is somewhat forgiving (with UT, ND, UNC, and Miami being the only really worrisome opponents) so I think anywhere from 6-8 wins is possible for this team.
We all want to win Nat'ys every year and recruit all the 5* players in the country but we need to start small. If we bite off more than we can chew we'll be chewing forever. Let's take it a step at a time. Realistic goals for the next 2-3 years should be to compete for the Coastal title and gradually improve in every category each year.
What do these two guys want, this is what Hokies wanted and what we should want
Dabo came in with a team in about the same spot as VT i think
While we were living on hype and the demanding to stay in state. Clemson was always getting better.
Dabo Played in the ACCCG in his 1st full year as coach. 8 years coaching, 4 ACCCG, 2 ACC championships, 1 Championship Game
Saying VT is not a blue blood? Only 3 to 5 percent of the P5 schools are blue bloods. VT has a national reputation, we had a great reputation just a few years ago. One issue was that when we did we did not take advantage of it and recruit nationally. We could have and should have, then, perhaps, we would be a blue blood today. We want to recruit Virginia, sure, but look nationally if you truly want to be great. OSU, Clemson, ND, Michigan, Stanford, are all robbing our backyard...go to theirs.
Mook's dad laid it out plain and simple after the Miami game. There was no student leadership on defense and the good freshmen players weren't in position to usurp leadership roles from upperclassmen. He also elaborated at length about how soft many of the supposed "dogs" had become.
I agree there was no fire in this team after the Ohio State game until Frank announced he was going to retire. Leaving Motley on the ground at the end of the Pitt game, defense not getting amped up when they get a stop etc...
French, for me the increase in number of true frosh that are playing is another point that reinforces your comments. I'm all for young guys playing if they are ready and beat out upper classmen, but how are these similarly rate upper classmen getting beating out by younger guys? They've been in the system for multiple years. Their raw talent measurables were comparable coming in. They should have a HUGE advantage.
I don't know what got me to thinking about it, but those of you who remember Crooked Road from Andy's blog might also remember that almost every issue we are gnashing our teeth about he called back then. From Jim Weaver's penny pinching hamstringing to our recruiting problems, Frank's waning influence, our S&C program, all of it. In incredibly annoying, bordering on repugnant fashion, no doubt, but the dude wasn't wrong about much, as it has played out. I had always had a lot of faith in our football culture and our S&C program, our recruiting getting us the guys we needed to keep it all going, but I'm seeing the cracks in the facade now. I don't want to shed my O&M glasses, but when I do, I'll have to admit that the cracks were bigger than I thought. Whit has started the reparations, and I trust him to get 'er did, so I'll hope to keep the faith thing going. Never one to want change for change's sake, I now see that change was necessary to move forward. And no, I don't miss Crooked Road, but I will give credit where it is due.
A lot of what I'm reading on this thread resembles the conversations I've had over the last few years with the PSU folks up here.
They were in a similar situation that we were in:
- Had a long-time coach who believed the way he operated was still going to work, even though the game had changed significantly
- Had a S&C program that wasn't getting the job done (when O'Brien arrived he said that the S&C program at PSU was stuck in the stone age and needed a major overhaul)
- Didn't understand how the new world of recruiting had to work
- Had a coach who was extremely loyal to his assistants, including his son (Shane was likely a world better than Jay Paterno, but still)
There are a lot of things in both programs that helped set up for the future, and with the penalties and turmoil PSU went through (which were far more severe than the transition we are going through), I think we're probably looking at being a year or so behind them rebuilding-wise, but probably not as far back as they fell due to things.
They have to deal with Meyer, and, now, Harbaugh at two in-division traditional powers. We have to deal with a new look UNC and Richt arriving in Miami on top of the current conference powers in the Atlantic division.
Yes, recruiting helps, and I believe it will improve. But I think at this point we have to pay it forward a little by getting results on the field in order to kick start recruiting in the next few years.
Difference with PSU though is they had recruited at an elite level at times and have way more tradition than VT probably ever will.
More tradition than us, yes, for sure. They didn't recruit a whole heckuva lot better than we have, though, excluding our last down years, but that wasn't because they were elite in recruiting as much as we were really really not-elite. But we haven't been smacked with massive NCAA penalties like they have, either.
You do realize that recruiting is roughly 90% of success in college football? I mean, sure, you can do a little better than you should with excellent coaching and development, but you'll never beat the big boys with any consistency with 40+ ranked recruiting classes.
Sounds like the same model we used during our 10-win streak under Beamer. The one where we ran through a weak ACC and were left wondering what happened nearly every single time we played truly talented teams. The problem with taking "system fits" (usually a nicer way of calling someone a 2 or 3 star recruit) and developing them is that their ceiling is limited. This model was why we could never get over the hump under Beamer at his peak. I think it all depends on peoples' expectations and goals for the program. There are those that view VT as a program that can eventually play for national championships, and those that are 100% fine with being in the second tier of the ACC.
There is a tier in the middle, that's where we were 10 years ago. My expectations are the same as Whit's, compete for the division title. Then you can win the ACC and then you will most likely make the playoff.
That's neither a "second tier ACC" mindset not a "win a national championship" mindset.
Am I the only one who was really proud of our 10 win seasons? People were griping even then, and calling for Frank's departure the whole time. Our place outside of the perceived elite programs will probably always hinder us from top ten recruiting classes, but with good coaching and tough kids, we can at least get back to being a tough out for about anyone, and a team that NOBODY wants to play. We caught lightning in a bottle in '99, and sure, we might do it again, but there is waaaay too much room for pride and enjoyment without playing for the NC, and I'd like to get that feeling back.
You got it right. Championship or bust mentalities make for miserable fanbases. Lane was the Lane of old when the fan base was actually satisfied with results on the field.
Part of it may be that, as a fan since '68 who has attended a lot of games, held season tickets for years, the whole shebang, I got to experience the transformation personally. Tech literally went from rags to riches, and I was fully along for the ride. We yelled like we were playing the game and took personal pride in the intimidation that Lane became. My friends and I were an extremely happy fan base. Yeah, we griped about Stiney and later, Weaver, and everybody wants to go undefeated and win it all, but we were happy with what we had. Satisfied? Maybe not completely, but we were proud of our team, our school, and didn't hesitate to preach Hokie whenever given the chance. We had swagger, dammitall, and we need to get that back. Still love the Hokies, still proud of all things VT, but not so happy anymore. Hopefully, we're going to get back on that "we may not beat you, but you'll know you've been in a fight" track.
Houstons recruiting class was 40, we were 41. We saw what they did to FSU last year in the bowl game right? The previous year in a bowl game they beat Pitt. BTW this is their highest ever recruiting class in terms of ranking in at 40. Herman was interested in the job but said VT had their sight set on Fuente already. Here is the link and hopefully I am doing this right and this thread is ok for this post. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25474412/ins...
Where did you see Herman was interested in the job?
"The hottest young coach on the planet said he didn't take South Carolina because it is "not one you're going in and it's a national championship." The same with Maryland. Virginia Tech was "the most intriguing" of all, but the school seemed to have its sights set on Memphis' Justin Fuente." It had this statement about halfway down the link I posted.
Sorry I was looking so fast I missed that. I think that's some hot air though. He had an offer on the table from Houston before VT started looking.
Yeah, i'm happy with our decision and Memphis was beating up on Houston for a while until they lost by 1 last year, anyways we just got a 4 star recruit I know you already know and our class on 247 just went from 48 to 31 so far haha so have a leg!
I agree completely we have to recruit better to have a chance. Good Point French no doubt we need a closer on this staff.
I'm not an X's and O's guy and I barely follow recruiting. Having said that I have common sense which has led me to believe that a bunch of 2*, 3* and a few 4* guys will get you some 10 win seasons, and maybe a couple of conference championship appearances and wins. To counter, a bunch of 3, 4 and a few 5 star dudes will lead to playoff berths and an occasional natty win. Regardless, French is right, even the 5* dudes need development.
Not disagreeing with any of the thoughts here on this thread. Development is absolutely the key to success at VT.
However, if a National Championship is what we are (one day) after (and I suspect we all dream of that one day) recruiting better players will need to happen eventually. I definitely think we can take the next step (competing for the Coastal) with the types of guys we've been getting. And I really don't think winning the ACC is completely out of question. But think back to the National Title game this year. Alabama has 4* & 5* guys two deep at every position (I'm making an assumption here). Nick Saban was rotating 6 guys on their defensive front (the three down linemen) against Clemson. Quality depth will probably be a key factor in determining the winner of the playoff in most years.