I know half of TKP already understands that youth is the root of our struggles this year, and that the other half is tired of hearing the "young team" rhetoric, but I didn't realize exactly how great the dearth of older players on this squad was until I just looked at the roster. This is a comprehensive list of seniors left on the 2018 roster:
- Steven Peoples
- Yoshua Nijman
- Kyle Chung
- Braxton Pfaff
- Ricky Walker
- Vinny Mihota
For those of you counting at home, that's 3 offensive linemen, 2 defensive linemen, and a running back. As in, 3 of the 4 units currently providing the best and most consistent play on the team this year (where the other impressive group is the wide receivers).
We are fresh off an offseason with an unprecedented level of attrition on defense, between players declaring early for the draft, players becoming academically ineligible, and players being dismissed for violating team rules. Our biggest flaw this year is inconsistency, and that's to be expected with as many new faces as we have in the 2-deep. Next year, with up to 38 of the 44 players returning to the 2-deep, we'll suddenly be among the most experienced in the Coastal, and should be ready to contend in the ACC.
Comments
Appreciate the thread. It puts the youth explanation in perspective.
I now look forward to a thread of not-at-all recycled arguments from all sides of this issue.
Reminds me of the rants by Brendan Hill on twitter. Continues to point out how young this team is. I know I'm looking forward to when they are experienced. think we have some great seasons ahead of us.
What is Brendan saying on twitter?
He has been voicing how this is a young team and you gotta have more seniors and juniors to win. He has been providing examples among the way.
we're 7 games in to the season, and lack of experience should no longer an excuse. The longer it remains an excuse the more this becomes a recruiting and coaching issue, not a player issue.
It generally takes more than a full season for a player to become comfortable in this defense. See: practically anybody who has played on Bud's defense as a freshman not named Fuller. Hell, we were yelling on here about Stroman's blown coverages and poor tackling technique into his junior year, but he turned out to be great last year. Now multiply that by 9, and, well, here we are.
We've been decimated this year for a number of reasons, i get it. But the defense has enough game experience at this point that they should have pretty much seen everything any team can throw at them (esp. after last week). If they still aren't getting it, then that's either a failing of the coaching staff for their inability to adapt the coaching and play calling, or a complete failure in the recruiting system for not getting players with the mental acumen to play in this system... or both
there should be some improvement over the course of the season, absolutely.
But if you think 7 games of starting against 7 different offensive schemes is suddenly supposed to turn rookies into savvy veterans, I think you're way off base.
Bud Foster didn't suddenly forget how to coach defense. and recruiting is always a roll of the dice. All signs can point to 'great prospect' and sometimes you land a player who needs 2-3 years to develop into an effective ACC player, sometimes you hit the jackpot and land a player ready to start from day 1, and sometimes you draw a bust.
I'm not trying to say experience = savvy veteran. Not at all. Simply put, I expect mistakes to be made early in the season, but the same repetitive mistakes shouldn't be showing-up by this point in the year.
He's saying that it takes longer than you think.
While they're getting better, it was a pretty big gap to cover.
Edit: Oh, I see this has been covered elsewhere.
Sorry but you're wrong. 7 games is not long enough for our guys to be effective, or they would be effective and playing well and shutting down offenses already and we would not be having this conversation. Most of Buds guys on the d line don't start til they're juniors because other teams have O lineman that are upperclassmen and have spent 3-5 years in a collegiate weight training program. Motu took years to develop, so did Ricky, Dadi, Maddy, and pretty much every lineman we've ever had besides Settle who was obv legit. We generally have several upperclassmen with a few young guys sprinkled in for this reason. The fact is it takes more than a year for guys to develop into legit contributors. Without experience is the defensive backfield we lack the ability for upperclassmen to mask the weak spots in the backfield. Experience is the factor, it's not coaching.
And while Settle had the physical tools from day 1, he was frequently overly aggressive and out of position until things really started to click towards the end of 2016. IIRC he wasn't an every-down player until last year, despite being the most physically-dominant D-lineman on the roster his entire time on campus.
Love Big Tim but would think physical tools would include the ability to play multiple snaps in a row. It took Tim quite some time to get to that point. Tim wasn't physically ready for about a year and half after being on campus.
No, I'm not wrong, and experience should no longer an excuse. It was and excuse when the season started, but not any more. These players have now completed more than 1/8 of their entire collegiate eligibility and I would like to think they have some concept of what is going on and what they need to do on the field. That wasn't on display last week (granted, that offense is a PITA to coach against), and I go back to this being a coaching and recruiting issue thats been magnified by attrition this year that was way higher than expected.
Yes, you are wrong.
1/8 of a college career is supposed to result in a player reaching their potential? what? College careers are already extremely short and most players aren't reaching their potential until 1/2 or 3/4 of the way through them.
My reply above basically sums up my opinion. And similar to what I said above, experience != max potential. All i'm saying is
1) The defense has experience, and
2) They shouldn't be making the same mistakes by this point in the season
They are still making the same mistakes, so either the message isn't being received from the coaches, or the coaches are not being effective in their communicators.
1) Saying a half-season should turn players into seasoned veterans is missing the point many have brought up in this thread. Usually, only a select few players are thrust onto the field in their FR/SO years in Bud's defense, and with very rare exceptions (Kendall, Kyle, and not much else) they struggle, and in many cases the struggles continue into their junior seasons. Also, we usually have at least some veteran leadership at all levels of the defense, whereas this year we have Walker and Mihota on the DL and that's about it.
2) It's very difficult to work on mistakes that mostly stem from inconsistency and inexperience when you're spending the bulk of your practice time each week preparing for an offense that you've never seen before.
Or the message is being communicated and received effectively, but the players are unable to execute. Or (most likely) some combination of the three.
related article about experience in college football from a betting perspective.
HokieRif I wonder how experienced you are in the world of athletics?
https://www.gamblingsites.com/football-betting/strategy/the-importance-o...
"We think that they are. Not in every single case of course, as some players learn quicker than others. But we firmly believe that, on the whole, college players benefit significantly from the experience they gain. Their entire college playing career is one big learning curve, and being further along that learning curve is a distinct advantage.
On that basis alone, the number of returning starters on a college team is definitely worth considering from a betting perspective. Having plenty of experienced players is very likely to help a team, while a notable lack of experience can be harmful.
Familiarity Matters Too
We've established that the experience of returning starters can benefit a team. It's not just their overall experience that makes a difference though, it's the fact that they're familiar with the team. They've had time to get comfortable in the setup and their surroundings, and that's good for both the individual players and the team as a whole. When players are familiar with their teammates, they tend to perform better. Better performing players obviously leads to a team performing better collectively."
Just a few of the arguments they go into.
I coach high school basketball, very different from college athletics but the difference between each grade level is dramatic. So much has to do with non-basketball related factors like becoming accustomed to a new environment.
HokieRif you just ain't too bright aren't ya
This ain't it chief.
Well nothing is getting through his/her head so someone is gotta take that route
That's where you're wrong my man.
That man ain't spewing intelligence he's wrong and should know he's wrong but he think that he's Mr Know It All
See http://www.thekeyplay.com/comment/747617#comment-747617
Please go ahead and enlighten me- tell me what part of my argument isn't valid?
Most of this defense have play 7 games right? Your saying this defense should be playing like 3rd or 4th year starters. You do realize they've play only 7 games right?
Also it's 7 different offensive styles they've play it's hard to pick up different styles on the fly
He may be wrong but insults have no place here.
Well if you doing this way he'll never learn that his wrong
Ah yes, the time honored internet tradition of insulting someone until they realize that they are wrong.
Well I just heard someone call smoke on the water master of puppets so he is smarter than that guy
When you graduated from high school, and went to VT, were you a good student half way through your first semester? I wasn't. Hell, I didn't know how to study until half way through junior year. I just don't see how, after 7 weeks, you expect redshirt freshman Caleb Farely to play at the same level that Greg Stroman did during his Junior year.
I also counted 9 seniors next year in the two deep. That's actually insane. 27 of our 42 (and honestly most of the promising players) players will be ready to ball out towards the playoff in 2020.
Already booked my room for the title game for 2020. Anyone else?
HA! I remember when everyone on TKP was saying our best year was gonna be 2015/2016 and that we just had to wait until our 2016 team....
To be fair, we almost won the ACC Championship in 2016, with a brand-new head coach...
Kyle almost counts as 2 seniors.
The ultra rare super-duper senior.
The double secret senior
In some circles, we just call that an engineering major.
And when I was at Tech we called them "Cadet Admiral".
Lots of people spend 7 years in college.
Yeah they're called Doctors and Lawyers
Or they're just called your friend *redacted to protect the
innocentslacker.I'm supposed to meet with Tech next week about going back to earn my degree (with a major change) after having been gone 22 years. What's that make me?
OLD AS SHIT
That is actually pretty cool, good on you!
That's not a dig on you at all. Hell, I started college in the fall of 2007 and didn't get my degree until 2016. I had a long break in between as well.
I just rag on a certain friend for generally putting off leaving Blacksburg, read real life, for a long ass time.
I never took it as a dig, I was just curious! :D
Started 2002 (not st Tech) I'm hoping to have my bachelors by end of 2019 or beginning of 2020. Then when Tech gets with the times and has a masters online or at Blacksburg campus I'm going to try for that.
VT has several masters programs online
https://www.vto.vt.edu/index.php?view=programs&show=masters
Just not in the field of emergency management or related fields. They only have them at the NOVA campus.
My aunt took 27 years from starting her degree to finishing it. She took a break to be an ER/cardiac care nurse for 20+ years in the middle.
What's crazy is losing those two seniors on the DL is a critical loss. We're in bad shape on the line.
Hewitt has been pretty good so far. I'm looking forward to seeing how he develops.
Wow, I honestly didn't realize we only had 6 seniors on the roster. Not only is that going to contribute to mental errors and a physical disadvantage (I think we can reasonably assume seniors are bigger, stronger, faster than underclassmen on average), but having so few seniors has got to make it harder for a team to deal with adversity.
I'd like to see more bright spots from the young players this year, but I do completely agree that next season should be a very different story.
I agree 100% but also think that there is a lack of knowledge base for the young players to refer to when making adjustments in game.
Bud can't say play X a little more like Y because they have not prepared and played Y 2 times; they maybe have never played Y.
It makes it hard for sure to not have that leadership from upperclassmen. When these Fr/Sophs are Jr/Sr hopefully they will have learned from experience what it takes to win. The offseasons are crucial for team development.
The upside is that this team is going to be fire in 2020 with QP behind center.
Well there's always next year, amirite?
For me its the inability to tackle. We have young players contribute in the past and i have never seen such an inability to do the most fundamental action of football. Idk if we just have bad players or bad coaching but that really worries me.
The defense in 2010 was relatively young and struggled to tackle and get stops (see the Boise State and JMU games). Fortunately that was the most potent offense that Stinespring ever had.
Obviously it's not comparable to the youth and struggles of this defense, but it's not completely unprecedented.
It's also similar in that some attrition/recruiting misses left us with a patchwork DL, such as starting former TE Chris Drager at DE. But that line still had better size and more depth. The whip and backer (JGW and Lyndell Gibson) we're also at least a step down talent-wise from what we have now but more experienced.
The big difference in 2010 was that we had a better and more experienced secondary with guys like Roc, Hosley, Whitley, and Davon Morgan and a young Kyle Fuller.
I have a feeling the 2010 wouldn't have given up 49 to ODU though. At least JMU struggled to score. They would probably put up 30+ on us right now. And they certainly didn't shit the bed against GT like we did.
That's the difference between a few inexperienced players mixed in with some veterans at every level (2010) and a ton of players who had barely seen the field before with only one senior on the field with them most of the time (2018, with Mihota on a snap count as he recovers from injury).
This is, by far, the youngest and thinnest defense Bud has ever had to piece together. Yes, part of the blame lies with the coaches for not recruiting enough depth at some crucial positions, but a decent portion of the departures were highly unexpected.
I think that previously there has been consistent/experienced players around new players to provide help.
I think that the veteran players helped the defense keep it shape. On a play without anyone being decisive in positioning and responsibilities, the defense becomes hesitant and scattered.
I think Motuapuaka is the best recent example of how a player can improve with experience. I remember old French articles where he skewered Moto as a liability who was consistently making misreads or getting beat when attempting to tackle.
Fast forward a couple years and he's signed with the Jaguars.
Detrick Bonner went from a total liability his first year playing to the most dependable player in the secondary. Same with Stroman - dude could barely tackle a blade of grass when he first got play time. Last season he was our best corner.
This is why I like Farley so much still. Stro had issues being in the right place and massive tackling issues when he first started playing. Farley is going through the same issues but you've got a little more physical talent to work with. I hope he picks it up as well as Stro did.
as long as this current group keeps the bowl and UVa streaks alive, I'll have no complaints.
might want to prepare for some complaints
No complaints! Both streaks intact. a very satisfying two weeks of football. wins by Memphis and UGa would have made it perfect.
Nah. UCF barely missing the playoff at 12-0 can only mean further controversy about the CFP system, which may eventually bring the expanded playoff that we all deserve.
UCF beating Memphis was a good outcome for college football. It would have been interesting if Ohio State and Oklahoma had both lost, to see the uproar that #5 UCF behind #4 UGA, 11-2 and fresh off a loss to Bama, would have caused.
Nobody cares about UCF.
Even if that were true, it's not about UCF, it's about change for the improvement of college football. Change doesn't happen without controversy, and what bigger controversy than a team on an historic winning streak being repeatedly shut out of the national championship picture simply due to the fact that they're in a weaker conference?
Unless your ideal playoff is 4 teams, you should be rooting for UCF (or any other G5 school, really) to either go undefeated and miss the CFP, or to shock the world and win the whole damn thing, proving that they deserve a seat at the table.
UCF is a metaphor for about 120-some FBS schools. We used to call it "Boise State".
If my school/UCF wins every game on the schedule, could they still miss the playoff?
So, counterpoint- MOST fans care about UCF. (Even if their mascot is really, really stupid.)
Is their mascot a blue guy with a cape falling off a horse too?
I did not know that.
Pretty much.
I hate that I had to root for Bama, but had UGA won, the playoffs would have been #1 Clemson vs #4 Alabama and #2 ND vs #3 UGA. I, personally, am happy to not see two SEC teams in the playoffs, with a possibility of the SEC championship rematch for the title game.
Yeah, it felt wrong on Saturday rooting for Alabama.
Personally, I just love watching the TV shows where some analyst repeatedly says, "the committee's job is to pick the four best teams, and Georgia is a better team than Oklahoma, and the committee did the right thing picking Oklahoma over Georgia."
I would not actively root for two SEC teams, but the committee is supposed to pick the four best teams. If two of the four best teams happen to be in the SEC, that's not the committee's fault.
But at least they didn't include OSU on the grounds that the Big Ten champ shouldn't be left out three years in a row. That was the dumbest line of reasoning I heard all weekend. Aside from the fact that a team's conference affiliation shouldn't matter to the committee at all, previous years' results have nothing to do with this year's selection.
The best teams in the SEC were paired in the SEC Championship game.
We've already seen that matchup. Why would we want to see it again?
The question to the committee is not, "which are the two best matchups people want to see?" The question is, "which are the four best teams?"
I also realized, too late, that this is in the wrong thread.
I think an under-valued aspect of the lack of seniors has to do with leadership. The few seniors we have are quiet, lead-by-example type guys. That kind of leadership sets the tone during the offseason but it isn't the type of leader that young guys can really rally around when times get tough in season. After the JMU debacle, the seniors on that team held a players-only meeting and turned the season around. We just don't have that type of vocal leader right now to help out the young guys.
I am really concerned about the DL next year. Hewitt looks good, but he isn't the bell-cow to anchor the DL. Who on the roster is going to step in for Walker. Who are the #3 and #4 DTs for next year. Outside of Gaines who are going to be the next DEs. The coaches are, once again, most likely going to move guys that could flourish as appropiately-sized DEs to DT to cover that glaring hole. That will screw up the young DE's development. You can guarantee that the fact that we keep doing this is already being used against us in recruiting and we are just going to solidify that notion.
While that is certainly a factor (& a sizable one at that) it absolutely does not remove basic/generic expectations (see: ODU, UNC, Ga Tech, UVA or continuing the bowl streak). Plus, Fuente selected to drop a number of key senior defensive players &, in doing so, completely hampered the unit. There are other players on other/better teams (particularly in the SEC) that were kept on their respective teams for worse actions & codes of conduct. That's how I feel about it. That's how I will continue to feel about it.
Nope. Fuente only decided to remove one player Hill. The others he didn't have a choice in the matter.
And Hill wasn't even a senior.
He didn't have a choice with Hill, either. Every fan on this board would have kicked him off the team if they knew the whole story.
And I'll counter that by saying only two of those "key senior defensive players" were actually seniors, both of which he had no choice in dropping:
That leaves Cam, a freshman, and Trevon, a junior. You can feel about it however you want, but you're wrong in both cases. For different reasons, both would have ultimately been a cancer in the locker room -- Cam for his work ethic or lack thereof and special treatment, Trevon because everything I've been told points to the rumors we heard about why he was dismissed being true.
If there's any others I've forgotten or aren't aware of though, please feel free to add them.
Because I don't feel like editing my previous post, I'm making a second and want to take this a step further:
I'd rather Virginia Tech have a code of conduct and an ethical team that does things "the right way", even if that means never winning another game in any sport ever again.
2-8-1
This is exactly why we should have tempered our expectations this year. FSU gave us a false sense of confidence. Our present W-L record is not surprising at all. The fact that we still control our own destiny in the Coastal is both comical and sad. BUT there is still no reason we should have lost that game that none of us remember and probably never really happened anyway. AND there is still no reason we should have given up almost 500 yards on the ground to GT.
This. So much #goacc action going down in the Coastal this year.
Only having 6 seniors is not an excuse for losing to ODU - a school where almost all of their players wouldn't even be granted a walkon spot at VT, or getting absolutely dominated at home by a far from good GT team.
I get the team is young, but the recruiting and coaching should be expected to be at the level where neither of those happen.
I don't think anyone has said that we were expecting to lose to ODU. But if you didn't half-expect to get dominated by GT after watching the second half running game of ND, that is surprising given your general outlook on the team.
GT makes a lot of teams look silly. Especially young teams.
If I remember right, they brought in Motu to talk to our linebackers about what they can expect to see since none of them has seen GT before.
Not like Motu was ever out of position against GT in his time at VT..... I guess he had more availability than the Edmund brothers
Moto was actually pretty good against the triple option. Unfortunately GT didn't really run the triple option against us this year. Inside zone read and QB power all night long.
GT was one of the worst defenses we'll face all season.
We had 5 straight drives that yielded 37 total yards.
Enough with the excuses. Just because the defense is young, doesn't mean we need to have zero expectations on the other side of the ball. The offense was not expected to be this bad this year.
Facts. These are facts.
Young teams have been known not to produce when the pressure is on. We were down 2 touchdowns at that point and the offense stalled... that didn't surprise me either. (See ODU... as you mentioned) I want the Hokies to be just as successful as you do, but I'm not going to expect a National Championship starting 6 seniors, a backup QB, and without a reliable running game.
And this is where you step into your ridiculousness, and why it's silly to even engage with you.
Wanting to beat OLD FUCKING DOMINION and not get embarrassed at home by a bad GT team = delusions of thinking we were going to win a Natty? Okay, guy.
Boy you are fun to share different point of views with.
Oh you know how outoftowners are to regular folks.... HA
I'm totally fine with differing points of view. Spinning the station, moving the goalposts, making absurd statements that put words in the mouths of others isn't really fostering discussion, and is downright unpleasant.
In week 7, 5 straight drives and 37 total yards of offense against one of the weakest defenses of the year is an issue well beyond the team being young. Either the coaches or players aren't doing their jobs, likely both. The constant string of excusing poor play just gets so tired.
I'm not "excusing" poor play. I'm not saying "hey guys, we suck but it's fine", I'm just pointing out that there is a reason we are in this situation and assuming everyone does their jobs it should be significantly better next year. If not... then maybe it's time to make some big changes.
There were delusions of winning the Natty leading up the the ODU game. And then again after the ODU game before we got embarrassed by ND. And the GT game was a classic case of 9 defensive starters never having played a college-level option offense before, combined with some questionable playcalling by the staff and an offense that lost their confidence for a quarter and a half.
Yes, it sucks. No, there isn't much that can be done about it. Yes, it should be a lot better next year.
AMEN... well said... too many topics/points go from a valid criticism of the program to "Well I guess we just fire everyone".. It's absurd at times
I'm not even going to swing at this hanger.
The offense actually stalled when were tied 21-21.
Depends on how you want to look at it. Stalled to me is running 3 plays as they are supposed to be.
21-21: Ryan Willis Fumble = punt
28-21: Tre Turner drop = punt
35-21: is when we ran 3 solid plays ending with a Ryan Willis sneak for negative plays to punt.
42-21: Offensive PI against VT.
If you want to count drops and fumbles as stalls I'm good with it. I think that led to the down 14 stalled drive that to me was when I knew we were done.
This youth talk is now kinda loser talk imo. The young kids have have 7 games under their belt to gain experience and when I watched the tackling techniques/effort in the GT game, you would think it was their first game they played in high school.
Everybody was just lunging at the GT players shoulders only, and sometimes missing. No wrapping up for the most part. Players way out of position. Taking horrendous angles to the ball.
I know this also falls on the coaches shoulders too but it seems like the tackling and positioning has gotten worse as the season has gone by.
I wonder how much of that is confidence and the lack of a vocal leader on the team. When things go well for the defense (Duke, UNC turnovers, early part of ND game, FSU), they seem to play lights out. When things don't, everything seems to snowball.
7 games isn't much... I used Stroman and Bonner as examples above, but they were not suddenly reliable after their 7th game. It took them each at least two seasons to be competent corners. By their third season, they were effective.
Yea I understand the 7 games isn't A LOT but I am going off what I saw in the 7th game and the positioning and tackling effort/technique for some of our players were outright atrocious.
We were complaining about Stroman and Motu's technique into their respective third seasons, and they both turned out mostly ok.
As long as you don't ask Jack about Moto.
Oh he will let you know about 54 alright
I am not talking about just 1 or 2 players. Most of the defense looked like a high school caliber tackling team. But I'll humor you... If you think every player develops at the same rate/turns into the same quality player, then have at it, time will tell.
All I am saying is that the tackling I saw during the GT game was probably the worst we have seen collectively, not just on an individual player basis. Again, I think that is half on the player and half on the coaches.
Most of the defense was in high school only a year or two ago, so..... what's your point?
lol these aren't your kids who are playing football because their mom's made them. The player getting scholarships for football represent the best of the best and don't represent majority of all high school players. Only 5% of high school seniors play D-1 ball. So when you look like a high school team consisting of non-D1 players, that is not a good look.
Plus our players have gone through spring and/or summer practice, college workouts, practice during the season, and for some who play... in game experience. Those who play should be a better form of themselves than they were in high school. If not... then again, I put some blame on the coaches.
You'll probably recall when you were playing D1 football as a freshmen how difficult it was. Even though you had been there a few months, your body wasn't physically as strong as others who had been there longer.
I'm also sure the many who have called out the coaches will remember back to the point where they were coaching college athletes and how much of a challenge it can be.
Some years are tougher than others. The same is true in the balance of life.
I am not saying it isn't tough, no one is perfect, we all makes mistakes. All I said is the tackling/positioning/tackling angles looked like a high school team-esq where some of the basics (wrap up form tackling for example) you should learned in high school were non-existent not just a couple plays, but almost the whole game by multiple player, freshman or not.
That's just it, though.
A lot of young college players were getting by on talent alone in high school. Or they were the biggest kid. Or the fastest kid. Fundamentals actually weren't important because they didn't need them.
Just because they had talent which you can't teach (height & speed for example), that doesn't mean that weren't taught the fundamentals.
Do kids have those kinds of talent that can get them a scholarship? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean they weren't also taught the fundamentals.
In the past, we'd have 1-4 'new faces' starting. This year we have 8/9? When it you have this much inexperience, I think the negative effects are multiplied (rather than added). If there is 1 or 2 in experienced players on the field, Foster can scheme to 'protect' them so to speak. Can't do that when everyone starting lacks experience.
If you want to talk about roster mismanagement/recruiting fails, I'll listen, but I'm not sure we'll see a top 20 defense for another season or two. It's not a knock against our current players, it's just that they need time to develop.
I don't disagree with anything you said for the most part. Yes we have more fresh(man) faces on the field and by default, we will probably have more young mistakes than in years past, but even with being their first year playing, they have had spring and/or summer practice, workouts, and in-season practice to improve. Watching the GT game with all the bad tackling/positioning/tackling angles reminded me of a high school game. Were some of them just in high school a year? Sure, but they have also had spring and/or summer practice, video reviews, workouts, and in-season practice, and with that, I was very surprised of the porous tackling/angles/positioning I saw from some of our freshman.
And to your last point, I never said we should/be a top 20 defense.
Where do you think they should be then?
I mean, wherever they are, thats where they are according to the rankings.
My posts were mainly about the tackling and as you probably know, that doesn't solely affect your defensive rankings.
FWIW, S&P has us at 91st defensively. Given our recruiting is typically at least top 30, I don't think our raw talent on defense is 91st in the nation, but, we'll see. I get the point - good coaches get players to perform at a level greater than the sum of their parts, and right now it feels like our defense is playing less than the sum of their parts.
Using a puzzle analogy - when you have 8 returning players and 3 new players, it's like the puzzle is 3/4 assembled, and the pieces eventually fall into place. When you have the opposite (3 returning players and 8 new players), it's like putting a puzzle together from scratch; you're trying to figure out which pieces fit, which don't, and it's just very time consuming.
I think this team is going to need at least a whole season to become a top 50 defense (and even that might be pushing it) and at least two full season before we're top 25 defense again.
I am not happy about how this season has gone but all I see when I log on here lately is people yelling at each other about the same thing.
via GIPHY
Thank you for the optimistic post. I knew we had a young roster but didn't
realize how young.
It looks like we have the youngest power 5 team in college football history, game day should do a short clip about it
they will do it only if they can show highlights of the ODU game and Savoy donking the punt off his head
Too Soon!
I'll add (well, pile on) with this interesting fact...
We also have only 19 juniors, 10 of whom don't play any meaningful snaps on offense or defense.
My problem with the youth argument isn't that we're losing, it's what we look like while we're losing. At least with the defense, I don't see a talented but inexperienced unit that is making mental errors, or showing flashes of promise to go with other poor plays that are losing games. I just see a group that straight up isn't talented enough.
You see a bunch of dead, burnt trees after a forest fire, and I see great opportunity for fresh growth.
Guess we'll find out next year which is closer to the truth.
Yes i can tell
Perhaps those in charge of recruiting and player development/retention are responsible for having just 6 seniors on the roster? Perhaps they should have addressed this possibility a bit more aggressively with recruiting/juco's transfers? Reminds me of Kurt Newsome signing 2 OL over a 3 year period and wondering why we sucked up front.
So Beamer and his staff?
Sure.. especially the ones still working here. It was their "guys" that were getting steamrolled by GT. Perhaps Bud and Charlie should have recruited better? or simply more DT/DE prospects? Or Coach Fuente, who was hired nearly 3 years ago. How long is his roster grace period?
Your complaint was about depth and lack of seniors. Fuente didn't recruit these seniors and couldn't of. He truly has at best Sophmores and a transfer junior under his name.
Joe said it in a different thread, but the roster management at DT has been really, really, bad, and that's not Beamer's fault. One could make the argument that kicking off Mook, Adonis, and Hill was a bad idea, but I disagree with that.
The Beamer-to-Fuente transition has been smooth, but slow. By my count, we have 7 starters who were signed with VT before Beamer announced retirement, and only 3 who played for him. IMO Fuente's first move to make the team his was to kick Mook, Adonis and Hill of the team. After 2.5 years, this is finally his team. I'm looking forward to seeing how he leaves his mark on the program.
Fuente has zero choice with Mook or Adonis.
Yeah, I don't get why people keep pushing the narrative that anyone chose to remove Mook and Adonis. Their actions left both the school and the athletic department no choice. One was removed per NCAA rules; had he been anything but a senior he could have eventually regained his spot if I understand the rules correctly. Unfortunately, he instead burned his last year of eligibility by failing to make grades. The other was removed per university policy concerning felonies, and whether you think weed should be legal or not the fact of the matter is he committed a felony by both Virginia and federal law.
Facts are facts. Don't change them. His case has been stayed until December.
He's also been a victim of very unfortunate circumstances with the apartment fire. Wish him well.
Not much you can do during a coaching transition year. Our 2016 class came in at about ~47th IIRC, and those players are juniors and redshirt sophomores now. And anything before that is hard to pin on Fuente and his staff, even considering Bud and the handful of holdovers from the Beamer era.
As for JUCOs and grad transfers, I don't see how it would have helped much in the current instance. Yes, maybe we could've brought in an extra linebacker after Tremaine declared early, but since Bud runs a fairly unique defense it is hard to ask a player to come in and get ready to play with just a summer's worth of work, and it's also not like good JUCOs and grad transfers are that easy to come by. And as for the secondary, yes we lost Stroman and Facyson to graduation, and Terrell Edmunds declared early for the draft, but we thought we were still going to be pretty good at corner with Adonis and Mook returning. By the time their departures were made final it was much too late to try to shore up those holes.
Also, this is a completely different situation than Curt Newsome's O-line recruiting failures. Just this year we brought in two 4* LBs, a 4* CB, and a 4* safety, plus 5 more DBs, another LB, and 4 D-linemen, one of whom left the program before the season. Last year we signed two 4* LBs, a 4* safety, and a 4* DE, plus 3 more DBs, 3 more LBs, and another 3 D-linemen. We have the bodies, they just aren't quite up to speed yet.
And Bud did bring in a JUCO DB, Webb. Remember, we lost 2 starting DB's, Webb and Alexander, in the off season. The coaching staff did try to shore up that position somewhat.
we'll be good next year
... said every fan, for every team, ever.
Except in this case it's probably true, unless we have yet another catastrophic offseason.
We should be better, I agree. With the amount of returning starters and barring any catastrophic attrition like this year we should be much better from both a skill and experience perspective.
I suspect next year could still be rough. Only 9 seniors (the last of the Beamer-era recruits) currently seeing significant play time, kids still developing. As long as they're competing and looking better next year than they do this year, I'll be fine with taking our lumps. But if our losses are still non-competitive and kids who played this year as freshmen and sophomores are lacking in fundamentals?
Yeah, I'll be upset and highly concerned.
I'm not saying I expect ACC-championship-level play, but we should definitely see an improvement over this year.
Offense very likely. Defense depends on whether VT can D-linemen to transfer into the program and whether everyone on the starts to take that next step.
We're only losing one primary contributor from the D-line. While Walker is definitely the most experienced and most talented player we have right now on defense, effectively only replacing one player shouldn't be too difficult, assuming most of the rest of the defense takes an expected stride forward during the offseason.
Losing Walker will be like losing more than 1 player. Ricky will be a good NFL player and his leadership will be missed big time and he is at our most thing position. In spite of that we have a chance to be significantly better depending upon the progress of the qb competition, cb development (which I predict will be night and day - it always is at cb by year 2 - see stro, roc, Bonner and even Cam player corner and he was much criticized at times - unfairly).
Our recruiting has a strategy with positions of need. Our WR's are close to a huge step forward (good recruits here). as well as the young O line which even with the losses will improve due to the young talent. This will take 2 years to get where fans want to attain, but next year we will be marketable better.
We have 6 seniors because guys could be RS seniors like Holland Fisher, Shai McKenzie, Raymon Minor, Chris Durkin, Melvin Keihn, CJ Reavis, Andrew Ford, Kendirck Holland, Billy Ray Mitchell, etc, etc, are long gone, were mis evals or never contributed. That is terrible scouting, no way around it. Guys like Austin Clark, Jaque Allenye, DuWayne Johnson, Harry Lewis, Carson Lydon, and Plantin would be true seniors that never panned out. That is a LOT of misses in 2 recruiting cycles. Need to get that fixed.
McKenzie and Reavis were not scouting issues, but otherwise, I agree. As a program that prides itself on 'finding diamonds in the rough,' it's pretty bad that we've fucked up scouting this badly. It's pretty crazy seeing all these names; I remember reading French's review for a lot of those guys. I wish we could brush this off and say that most of them were recruited at the end of the Beamer years, but a lot were also scouted by Foster/Wiles.
that's what you get when you hire an AAC coaching. bad scouting and misses /s
Need to get it fixed? Every one of those players was recruited by the previous staff. Unless you think Wiles or Foster are a significant part of the problem that lead to this issue, these players really have nothing to do with the current staff.
About half of those players were defensive recruits, meaning that (I assume) Foster or Wiles or Gray scouted them.
I'd argue they are getting fixed. It's tough to recruit when you have one arm tied behind your back wrt the previous staff. Now with the new staff I think there's a influx of talent on the D side AND the O side; they just need another year.
Yes, need to get it fixed as in future tense. I wasn't blaming Fuente or Beamer specifically, that's just a lot of misses.
OL is the hardest position to scout for, which is why quantity is important in that area There are 3 OL on that list and I believe Mitchell quit because of injury. I think our OL recruits the last 2 years have been trending in the right direction though.
Ford was deep on the depth chart, Durkin was behind folks at TE after coming as a QB (buried on the depth chart at QB) Reavis and McKenzie were not misses.
There are always misses and busts and as others have said, they were by the old staff. Yes there are many of the defensive side of the ball but we only have 2 defensive coaches from that staff left. The bigger argument would be that the DT cupboard is bare but none of those guys you listed were DTs.
I am really worried about how we are going to look at defensive tackle next year. The secondary was brutal to watch this year, but we have young athletes in that position. It seems to me like we won't have the size to be strong at tackle next year.
Losing walker is gonna suck. I have never seen us use a three man rush so much in my life.
Yep. Barring a JUCO transfer that is read to play, the numbers/bodies just aren't there. Just look at the roster. We are not red shirting 2 promising DTs this year or anything. Cupboard is bare.
Returning DL bodies on the roster that are 260+ (listed by weight, year adjusted for 2019):
Burke r-Sr
Hewitt r-Jr
Porcher r-So
Dean r-Jr
Driscoll r-Fr
Taylor r-Jr
Incoming DTs:
Pollard
Kendricks
Assume Dorlus is gone - JUCO?
Potentially 9 bodies. Depending on Porcher's development and Burke's health, top 3 DTs could be OK, but no depth; NEED at least one of the incoming guys to contribute.
Dean and Taylor are scout team level players... hate to say it but- IIWII. We need more bodies- preferably ones that can play in the ACC- desperately.
Maybe Foster goes ninja and switches everything to a 3-4. /s
I agree though that we don't have any playmakers in that group right now. Porcher or someone could have a great off season and surprise us next year but I really hope the secondary improves because we will need to bring pressure with the LBs next year.