I've had some time to process what I watched yesterday. It was a game that I think most of us thought we would lose, similar to last week against Georgia Tech, but it still sucks nonetheless because of how those games happened.
First of all, I'm fine with us losing a game because a team is more talented than us at this point in Fuente's tenure. There's still some roster turnover going on from the end of the Beamer era, and his young guys seem to be doing well. Notre Dame is a top five team, we didn't match up well with Georgia Tech's offense given the youth and inexperience on defense that we have, and Boston College has the second best running back in the ACC in my opinion. Once our young guys have time to develop, we will be more talented than Georgia Tech and Boston College and somewhere close to Notre Dame hopefully.
What I am not fine with is losing games because the coaches put players in position where they are less likely to succeed, can't field a competent offense in the second half, and blame the shortcomings on a "lack of execution."
In the Georgia Tech game, we knew the defense was going to struggle. Once the defense finally forced a punt, the coaches should have been focused on just getting the ball back. The offense was moving down the field with ease, and we could have taken it to the end of the half with a two possession lead. Instead, they put Savoy back to return the punt, someone who I don't recall ever returning punts in the past (correct me if I'm wrong) and has the most inconsistent hands out of all the receiver. He should have never been put in that situation to return that punt, and I believe everyone knew it. Before he even punted the ball, I said that I didn't like the decision to have Savoy back there, so this isn't a case of "hindsight is 20/20.
Yesterday, we watched Fuente decline a holding call that would have put a team with an average (at best) passing game at 2nd and 21 and gave them 3rd and 8 instead. In order for Boston College to get back the 3rd down distance that they would have had, they would have had to have gained 13 yards. I'm not sure what Fuente's algorithm was for making that decision, but we are lucky it didn't cost us. I almost wish it had so he would have to answer as to why he chose to do that. Additionally, the decision to go for it on 4th down with like 11 minutes left when we easily could have pinned them back, forced a punt, and gotten the ball back close to where we punted from. The defense had some time to rest up and was playing well.
Lastly, what in the name of God goes in the locker room at halftime for the offense to come out and do what they've done in the last three losses? Fuente is supposed to be an offensive genius, and he trusts Cornelsen. He can blame it on "lack of execution" all he wants, and I guess that's fair to an extent because any play can be successful if there is good execution. How about putting players in a position where it is easier to execute, though? Sure, running Deshawn McClease up the middle might work if most defenders are blocked and he can make anyone who isn't miss in close quarters. Or, you can run him to the outside in space where he is better, or simply put in Peoples or Holston, running backs who are more effective in running up the middle.
Simply put, Fuente is showing signs of being a below average to average game manager. I don't believe he makes the correct calls as often as he should when it comes to going for it on 4th down or even 2 point conversations (e.g. 2017 Georgia Tech game). I don't believe he or Cornelsen are good at adjusting mid-game unless it's something simple like changing the quarterback's first read on a throw (e.g. Belk Bowl). Whether that's through overthinking his decisions or not thinking at all, I'm not sure. I believe it's the former given how he openly admitted last season that he overthought the Georgia Tech game. Nonetheless, it concerns me.
I don't believe Fuente should be fired this season or even the next as long as we make a bowl game next season. Like I said, the team is still young and developing, and some of these offensive performances would be good enough for a win in the past given how good Bud's defense typically is. When the world begins to cave in on a coach, though, people look into the past for signs that it was going to happen. I hope what we're seeing right now isn't going to be those early signs a couple years from now.
This wasn't a drunken rant in the heat of the moment that I just wanted to get off my chest. I've thought about this all day today, and this is truly how I feel. Feel free to agree, disagree, add onto, or whatever in the comments, but I don't want this to devolve into a ranting/venting thread without any substance or value to what people are saying.
Also, I apologize for any typos. I typed this on my phone.
Comments
I remember wondering why we took people's out in the start of the second half (not sure if I was just to drunk to realize if he played much). He's been out consistent RB threat and we kept pounding mcclease into the middle. Agree with most of your observations and most of the complaints I've seen in here.
I wondered why Peoples wasn't in the second half more myself. He seemed to be running pretty good and getting yards in the first half. I also agree that most of OP's observations are valid and not exactly sure how to feel about them.
I agreed with the call to go on 4th down.
Yeah, for me that wasn't a bad call.
I liked his aggression with the call but we just didn't make the right read on the play. The defense kind of confirmed it was the right decision after they couldn't get us the ball back after we cut the lead to 7. Too many mistakes all around but it shows promise that we are close to beating teams like BC with 14 senior STARTERS compared to our team with only 6 seniors on our entire team!
Risk far outweighed the reward. Reward is another 4 downs and no guaranteed points. Risk is almost definitely giving them 3 points and the game
I haven't re-watched the game, but Fuente noted in the post-game Boston College moved to a two-high base defense in mid-second quarter and that coincided with the degradation of the Virginia Tech run game. (If anything, that should've opened up the run more.) He also mentioned execution errors. Reading between the lines, I have a suspicion part of those involve poor reads by Willis on read plays. Believe French is going to tackle that.
Nijman also got beat in every single running play in the third.
Watching that game, I kept thinking "Willis really doesn't see the field well."
Glad someone else noticed it too.
Pretty much how I felt. There were a number of wide open receivers he completely missed.
This times a million once they went zone coverage he had alot of struggles to finding holes in it though I'm no film expert maybe the recievers weren't finding the holes either though
I'm glad French is going to look at that. I don't have confidence in RW being able to read defenses. There's a pattern there.
Be patient. I am taking a deep dive at both run game reads, and the difference between Willis vs man/Cover 4 and Willis vs a traditional zone.
REALLY looking forward to this.
Look forward to it, French. During your review, would you take a look at a couple of things for me? I've mentioned this before re Clemson, but are we tipping our plays or are opponents stealing our signs or are we just a little too predictable? BC and others seem to jump our plays after the pre-snap read. No way to execute if the defense has an idea of what's coming. I'm no rocket scientist, but I was predicting some of the plays by Keene's motion or his final position at the snap. Maybe some lucky guesses, but I'm concerned that other DC's have some intel on us. This is the second season in a row that the offense has sputtered as the season progresses. I don't mean to insult our staff, but maybe they aren't aware of the tells. Thoughts?
There was a great article on the Athletic about how prevelant sign stealing is in college sports. Basically it happens year round in all conferences at every game.
Linkage please?
Not allowed per TKP rules.
To elaborate on Fireman's comment, the Athletic is behind a paywall. If you go to the athletic and search for stealing signs, you'll probably be able to find it.
I would think that an O coordinator would be happy if a defense starts predicting plays. It should make it that much easier to manipulate them.
Slow down there mike leach
While you're peeking the BC game, can you do me a favor and take note of the plays QP took the snaps in the 4th quarter. Seemed like they were calling completely different plays for him at the helm versus Willis. Odd...since they weren't keeper calls. The other 10 on the field are the same.
I'll hang up and listen.
yeah the pop pass that was so effective for soooo many times with sam rogers that weve all clamored for since he left made an appearance. although It didn't work. QP ended up keeping. it was still nice to see an attempt at it.
QP runs the Wild Turkey package, not the regular offense. 80% of those plays are handoffs, run options or QB keepers.
Thank you, oh wise sensei. Much appreciated.
This game warrants some analysis, but I don't think we would have predicted that Savoy would muff a punt. We do need to develop players, and it's not like Savoy doesn't have the potential to return punts.
I get that when you lose a game, everyone starts to second guess any decision. It certainly warrants analysis. Even Fuente reviews games.
I suppose I'd have titled it differently, though. We can analyze playcalling and decisions without it being a major concern regarding the coach.
I think EVERY player who has returned a punt this year has muffed one. Hazelton, Savoy, Carroll and one other. So I had no issue with them trying someone/anyone who could be effective. Hell if Settle was still there I'd be ok with him doing it.
Coach mentioned in the post-game interview that Watts was scheduled to return punts on Saturday but then he broke his arm in the first series.
Here's hoping Watts has a speedy recovery.
Happened on the first series. Took him to the x-ray room while BC was punting.
Also, in terms of skill sets that you tend to want in punt returners (quick, agile over top end speed/size), Savoy seems like a natural fit. He's also definitely been doing it in practice if they're throwing him out there in a game. Obviously it didn't work, but I don't think that on its face it was a dumb call.
For what it's worth, this tweet from Andy Bitter (which has been embedded in at least three different TKP Threads) does not include the full quote from Fuente. The full quote (which, to Bitter's credit, quoted fully in one of his postgame write ups) was:
I don't think Fuente is passing the blame to players. He acknowledged that the job of him and his staff is to prepare the players, develop them so they can execute.
This was an interesting call. It happened with 14min left in the 4th qtr, with VT down 7. My guess is that he wanted to preserve clock. If he BC ran on the first play, they'd take 20-40 seconds off the clock, and be back at third and long. The other potential explanation was that he was aware of how tired the defense was, and wanted to get them off the field quicker. I'd like to hear his explanation, but tbh I'm no as pissed about it as everyone else is.
As others have said, Willis got knock down pretty hard right before half time, and didn't seem the same after that. Might have something to do with it. I'm looking forward to French's review to see his comments on the offense.
Have to come clean here too! Saw this quote by bitter last night and completely flipped on Fuentes leadership in my head (and to Joe on Twitter)😬
Now that I re watched those interviews I feel better about his comments and do not think he was not accepting any of the blame there.
I still just want to see him display more sincerity or I don't know what it is but I just have a bad taste in my mouth about him right now partially due to rumblings I've heard and partially because I want to see him give us a little more than coach speak.
I too saw the quotes on Twitter last night and I watched the entire presser this morning, there was a solid amount of context missing.
Ahh right, the Twitter business model
This comes off to me as him trying to circle the wagons around his OC and protect him.
I would need to go watch game again but I don't feel like play calling has been stellar this year and some of the more reasonable comments I have heard were around the oc playcalling being a bit questionable.
This is journalism at it's finest though these days. People taking half a quote out of context and getting the fanbase all rabid.
Actually the journalist is the one who reported the full quote in context, as most of them do
I know, I was being sarcastic since it's the fans that didn't read the entire quote and then pretend to be journalist to get the fan base riled up. I should've clarified.
Idk to me it feels like he's taking as much accountability as Auggie Garrido's "I'm sorry. I totally F'ing failed you" speech. I could be totally wrong but it feels like he's trying to shield Cornelsen (which I think a good boss should do). But I'd like to see him personally take them blame. "It's my fault. This loss is on me." Instead of blaming players and making excuses like that we won 2 years ago with the same OC.
That seems like some sort of fallacy. We went to a NC game with Beamer, that doesn't mean that he is forever a perfect coach. And tbh I didn't like the play calling in 16 or 17 I think we just had better talent that carried us. Yes Jerod was a great runner and was pretty reliable to get us out of 3rd and short. And Isaiah was reliable with some of the best hands to grace Lane stadium. Bucky was a nightmare for the defense on goal line fades. The defense was solid enough to bail us out as well. But we don't have the 2016 team anymore. We have who we have and our play calling needs to be that much better to make up for that loss of talent and experience.
I couldn't imagine screwing up a large project at work and telling my plant manager it's not my fault because of my work 2 years ago.
Well let's run with that analogy at the end there a little bit. Imagine you screw up a project at work, but then when your boss called you into her office, you explain that most of your team is new to the company, and that for most of them, this was their first big project they'd ever worked on. You realize mistakes were made along the way, and you did your best to limit their effect, but ultimately you just didn't have the team to complete the project the way it needed to be. You explain your vision for what the end result should have looked like, and point out that two years ago, when you worked on a similar project, the end result was strong, because you had a team under you that understood what was needed and could produce results. You also mention that you understand that it's ultimately your fault that the project wasn't up to snuff, and also that you think the team under you showes a lot of promise, but it's going to take some time for them to acclimate to the company culture and understand your business model.
Are your saying that's a fallacious argument?
My boss wouldn't want to hear that. He'd want to hear how I'm going to get it done. What I'm going to do differently to not fuck up again. My strategy from my old successful project clearly did not work. It needs to be changed.
Also, if it was my job to bring people into the company and train them to be part of my team, the excuse for not having a good team doesn't fly. Then you have to accept responsibility for that miss as well.
Then your boss sucks.
My boss is awesome lol. I don't see anything wrong with being results driven and not wanting excuses.
BC is not more talented than us. I don't think it's even that close.
Just checked the talent composite. We are 31 and BC is an abysmal 68.
I think you could better argue that their players have more game experience, as a whole.
More experience, absolutely. More talent, not even close.
Yes, but experience also makes a difference for this year's team.
The good news is that they'll be better next year. The bad news is what we're going through now.
They have had more "talented" RBs than us ever since David Wilson graduated. And it's not even close. And I don't know that I would trade any of our OL units for theirs the last 20 years either.
They always seem to find a bruising RB. I can't remember when they haven't had a talented RB.
I don't know how you're measuring talent composite. Is it just stars?
If so, then it goes into the rabbit hole of talent / evaluation / development. Just because we recruited more stars doesn't mean we're more talented. Just that we have the potential of talented players (IMO). BC has had their system in place for about the same time I think. Maybe they just developed their players better.
The recruiting services have never been more accurate than they are now. The blue-chip ratio required to win a national championship in the modern game has still not been disproven.
You can go down that rabbit hole, but that argument loses legs with each passing year. The hidden gems always create a great deal of news and articles, but for the most part, these recruiting rankings represent a pretty accurate view of the quality of athletes and players on any given team, within a reasonable margin of error. The primary arguments against this involve a lot of anecdotal examples, "What about Holland Fisher and Nick Dew!! Look at how much better Sam Rogers and Hunter Renfrow are than them!!!"
There is absolutely truth to player development and teams that have a certain brand and commitment to doing so. BC is essentially a budget version of Wisconsin, and Wisconsin isn't exactly an elite recruiting school themselves. They have built a long-standing tradition of developing OL, RB's and playing a certain way that allows them to be successful. That said, It is not incorrect to say that, in general, we are going to field a roster each year with better athletes on average than BC. BC tends to do a great job of developing their gems, and perhaps their older roster is much more experienced and disciplined, but those things are often trumped by talent in today's game. We should be a team that is regularly outclassing BC athletically on the field.
Here is the talent composite by the way. Outside of a few notable bad apples like USCw, FSU, and Tennessee who have had notable culture/coaching issues recently, it gives a pretty accurate view of the top teams in the country.
You'll notice that the ACC has some of the least talented P5 rosters in the country.
You know that composite is only for one year, right?
So it doesn't really support this statement:
Also, those composites are for recruiting, and are limited to evaluating the recruits' state at that time relative to other recruits, which is somewhat different than their potential.
Just pointing out that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics out there, and it's important to view data with perspective.
No, the composite is for all the recruits on the current roster, so it is essentially a 4-5 year lookback on the total talent level.
I pointed out that it only counts recruiting, and I also talked about why that has become more and more reliable over time. Scouting and evaluations of high school players has never been more thorough and expansive as it is right now.
I am not saying this is the be all, end all, but it should not be dismissed either. It is part of the perspective you speak of when we evaluate the talent level of these teams.
The ACC having shit talent is evident. We have lots of schools who don't care about football and are not putting money into their recruiting and facilities to attract recruits. The malaise and indifference towards football in the conference is notable. Great coaching and QB play can elevate teams above their talent, but there is a reason the ACC has struggled to be a consistently competitive conference compared to the SEC and B1G.
Unless they've gone and re-evaluated all the players, those ratings are for when the recruits were recruits, which is different from what their composite level would be on the current roster. The weakness is that it doesn't account for development that happens after the recruitment phase.
I'm not saying it should be dismissed, but it's also a misleading indicator. It's a recruiting measurement, not really a talent measurement.
What? That's exactly what I'm saying, it's evaluating the quality of athletes based on their recruiting rankings. It's just making it into roster out of 4-5 classes. I never said they were being re-evaluated annually.
I don't think people generally become substantially better athletes from a strictly athleticism standpoint from 18-22. You generally have a good idea of how fast, twitchy, high you can jump, etc for your height and weight during recruitment. You might develop into a much better football player, but you are unlikely to get substantially faster, jump substantially higher, etc.
I'm not saying it isn't an indicator.
What I'm saying is that it's not a true measure of talent, as it completely ignores any development after recruitment.
I think the talent is relatively stagnant. I think "misses" in recruiting are far less common. There are fewer Kam Chancellors than ever, but we always hear about the ones that are.
Development can make less talented football players into better football players, and an overall better cohesive team, but the the level of raw athleticism is often more genetic than anything and is unlikely to change substantially over time.
Part of what recruiting rankings measure is "readiness to play", not raw talent or genetics.
They're clearly the best indicator we have during recruitment, but we often don't know how talented players are until we see them play in college.
Otherwise, I'm sure the NFL would be pushing to recruit out of high school, instead of waiting for college development. We see a lot of washouts and surprises, and with some players, the harder they work, the more "talented" they get.
I agree with much of what you're saying.
My objection was in using a recruiting composite to measure the talent on a team. It's more or less using a measurement that wasn't meant for that, and is at best imprecise.
Readiness to play is how close a high schooler is to the college athlete. they will continue to develop same as someone not ready to play. 2 years in and the kid who was "ready to play" who now has 2 years of game reps is probably still ahead of the kid who came "not ready to play" and has 2 years of practice team reps
Even according to the theories being posited here, you can only ever get to your predetermined maximum ability. Easy example. My wife and I, who had never run a triathlon, decided to train up and run one. She was initially faster (was a former competitive swimmer). I had to learn to swim in order to compete. Did we develop at the same rate? No. I had more undeveloped potential.
Someone who hasn't had optimal development has the potential to develop more.
Lol I think you replied to every one of my posts yesterday.
If I picked up baseball sure I have more room to improve immediately compared to Bryce Harper, but he has a tremendous lead that I will never catch. And the gap in our absolute level of skill is widening all the time as he hones his craft at the highest level with MLB game experience compared to my men's league at the rec center.
Do you not understand my argument? Really?
I'm saying that if you were magically rated higher than Bryce Harper because he had never played (so was never rated), and you had worked really hard and managed to get a two star rating because your high school had a great program and your dad was the coach, that as a walk-on he would blow your doors off after a year of college-level training.
He would develop faster than you.
Agreed but Texas and Miami in the last decade have had great classes, and haven't done squat with it (outside of one year when Colt McCoy was there and then got hurt in the BCSCG). Stars are a great indicator of how
"ready" a player is to provide depth, but says nothing about how good a player is / will be when they play.
Sure, you can claim that Tech might have better "raw" athletes than BC, but that doesn't indicate a better team at all. BC has always developed great OL play and MLB play, and development and culture are also very key indicators of how good a team is.
All the great teams currently (Bama, Clemson...maybe UGA?) for sure have great talent that they recruit (after all, you need great ingredients to create a great product), but to limit it to just that does a disservice to how hard players worked and get worked by a schools' staff. There's nothing more infuriating than a lazy culture or a lazy 5-star player and you can be sure that Bama and Clemson don't have any lazy players on their team at all.
We're basically two camps of people saying the same exact things.
Talent: natural aptitude or skill
Nobody here is trying to claim that coaching, development and quality time spent with the S&C coordinator don't happen.
They do. We all agree.
Talent, as a measurement tool, is every thing that happens to a kid BEFORE he gets to a school.
Once the kid shows up, he's coached, developed, and formed into the college athlete he becomes. The "talent" is the starting point.
That's all that "talent" evaluations do. They tell us who you are the day you show up. That's it.
Talent = Start, baseline
Development = Present
The "talent rating" is the starting point for the college coach.
(The blue chip ratio is just a theory somebody came up that, years later no team has yet overcome.)
Yeah but OP said:
"More experience, absolutely. More talent, not even close."
We're obviously not playing with frosh players right out of highschool. We're playing with players with experience and development. In that regard, talent includes development, culture, etc. And putting players in those positions raises their overall talent wrt their opponent. You can't tell me conclusively that Kam in his last year at Tech was inherently less talented than all the 5-star fresh outs that came out that year can you?
So yes I certainly want more blue-chip players year in and year out. Sure. But you can't purely say we have more talent based on star rankings. I don't think they directly correlate like that at all.
The number we can measure; the rating, is a number that is produced before a player gets to campus. In this sentence,
Talent specifically does NOT include development. It does not measure anything else that happened after the kid got to the school. It's the measure of the projected capability of the kid that showed up to campus. It's the baseline from which he is developed.
The top four synonyms kinda beat around this same bush:
flair: a special or instinctive aptitude or ability for doing something well.
aptitude: a natural ability to do something.
facility: an ability to do or learn something well and easily; a natural aptitude.
gift: a natural ability or talent.
Talent is not the measure of how good a kid plays. To give that a name- that's "skill".
Talent + Development = Skill
That is precisely the correlation involved in measuring talent.
To put it a different way;
Talent is the Radio-Controlled car on the shelf at the store.
Development is the crazy modifications you tweaked that thing with to make it awesome.
Skill is how awesome your car is.
If your asshole neighbor buys a bigger car; his has more "talent". If your car still kicks his ass, it's because your "development" overcame that margin. And assuming you won, you have a more awesome car (skill) than Al Golden.
........
To answer your Kam Chancellor question; if you're taking the "baseline" of a college senior, the best indication of "talent" is the mock drafts; or perhaps the even draft itself. This mock draft Had Cody Grimm, Ed Wang and Jason Worilds but did not project Kam to be drafted.
Having a strong VT bias, I would probably have selected him sometime within the first 5 picks, perhaps dropping as far as the top ten.
But in reality, Kam wasn't selected until the Fifth Round.
So the best measure/indication of Kam's NFL talent would have been a fifth round pick.
Turns out he's got mad skills. But he was passed up through 5 rounds of picks that NFL teams determined had more talent.
I see the line you're trying to draw, but the point I made earlier is still valid.
Recruiting rankings measure skill level among a group of peers. It's not just talent that's measured, but how well it has been developed at that point in time.
That skill level can and does change with experience. Which is why players go through a different ranking when they're being considered for the NFL.
We can debate how and when god-given talent is evaluated until the cows come home, but If you misapply the meaning of the ratings, you're still going to get erroneous results.
After two years of college-level development, a players skill-level will have changed. Some players are going to benefit more from that experience than others. Some had better training and development before the high school ratings were developed, some might be more dedicated to their training, and some might have just been over or under rated to begin with.
Even Mendenhall gets this, when he points out that only some of his players are "ACC caliber". I guess he knows a little something, as his team is having a pretty good year, all things considered.
There's nothing disagreeable in what you write. In my reply above I was untangling the concepts of "Talent" and "Skill" being used interchangeably.
We can have a bunch of valid, personal definitions of how we view talent, but there's a standard mathematical concept for that (the 247 composite). If you understand the idea that "natural aptitude" looks an awful lot like what a 247 composite score attempts to calculate you can appreciate the benefits and limitations of having this conversation with numbers.
Chris makes good points about when those evaluations have proven useful and what insights can be drawn from them. I'm trying to point out why they're so commonly corrollated with "talent".
It's like a "speed vs acceleration" concept; they're only valid for one specific point in time, but they're accurate enough to provide some valid, mathematical insights.
If you're catching any of the JJ vs RW discussion, you can see how rare it is to have a fairly standard comparison tool. Nobody is comparing those guys' recruiting rankings, because that discussion is not over the baseline talent level they showed up to school with; it's about who's better now.
Even if a talent argument is brought up- it's more likely a detriment to how they're making comparatively less progress with superior talent.
All coaching staffs assess talent specific to their team. They periodically reassess skill levels when they create depth charts and game plans. I have no doubt Bronco Mendenhall comprehends this.
I can't tell you with any accuracy how he ranks the "skill ratings" of his individual players, but I could certainly cite a depth chart to objectively point out his best players, and it would be hard to defeat that data point.
I don't reset my idea of "talent" each time I take a gander at somebody's skill level.
Talent happened in the past. For college players, the past is before they got to college. Everything after that is development and growth.
The 247 ratings are SKILL ratings relative to other players. They're valid at that point in time.
Which is also why a player can be re-rated. If they get re-rated and get another star, did their talent change? Or did their skills develop? (or did they get an offer from Ohio State or Alabama?)
Chris used the 247 recruiting composite to assess relative talent on teams, and I was pointing out the problem with doing that. It's a skill ranking/measure based on a specific point in time.
It's technically a skill projection, too. Two physically identical players will have different rankings when legal issues, grades, "frame"; risk factors or markers of success get added in. ("Fool me three times, Fullers. Fuck it, I'm going with my gut on this Kendall dude").
I would still clump everything one guy improves on in JUCO as "talent". To keep it simple; it happened before he got to school. Really there's no good data you can get out of a handful of numbers. From one player to the next, the ratings aren't that impressive.
French can figure out who is more likely to start next year because he understands why; simply picking the 4* kid over the 3* kid absolutely doesn't work for shit.
If you look for patterns over dozens, or hundreds of ratings; that's when they're useful. I agree with Chris- he cited a MAJOR difference over two rosters of 85 players. It's significant, and the numbers are decent indications of skill on day zero (or approximately, talent).
Yesterday they were. Especially at key positions. We have lost too many players.
I don't care what recruiting rankings say or whatever ranking you are using... their RBs and OL are absolutely more talented than we are. I'd also argue DL too
Zach Allen is a borderline first round pick. And I don't say that as exaggeration but because he is literally in the first round of several 2019 mock drafts.
Does the 'talent composite' account for raw potential/recruiting rank, or is it adjusted as players careers advance? For example - who would the talent composite value more, 3 star AJ Dillion (who is arguably the best back in the nation) or 4 star JC Coleman?
David Wilson's recruiting rank was locked in on National Signing Day in 2009. Unless a latent mistake is discovered, it will not change. (I say this because up until 2 years ago, DJ Coles was one of our highest ranked 5* recruits. 247 changed it after the fact, but it was due them observing a mistake in how it was calculated; not just them changing their mind afterwards.)
The recruiting ranking is only the talent evaluations performed before your college career starts.
Yes, J.C. Coleman was a more talented Running Back Recruit than AJ Dillon, according to the composite.
Likely reasons AJ Dillon had a lower ranking: 247's own evaluators actually ranked each one with a score of "91", so other recruiting services that feed into the composite (Rivals, ESPN) saw it differently. Dillon's offer list was actually a lot more impressive- he had more crystal balls for Michigan than BC (and he had a VT offer, too).
AJ Dillon went to high school in Connecticut. Not only does the level of competition affect ratings, but the evaluators access to him as well. Coleman went to high school in Chesapeake- he probably had more people watch him out of convenience than AJ had come watch him on purpose.
Yea this is my point - recruiting ranking might be a decent indication of raw potential, but it doesn't account for player growth (both physical and mental), schematic fit (thinking about how Vice would rather have a 2 star that fits his blocking scheme than a 5 star that doesn't), or other intangibles (leadership, 'glue guys', etc).
JJ... best movie ever!
They don't factor that in, so when the rosters are close it's not as reliable. But with a 37 rank disparity there is clearly a different level and quantity of athletes on each roster.
I also don't think AJ Dillon is the best RB in the nation. He is fantastic, and I would love to have him but there are others that I would take over him. His numbers are great because he is great but he's also in an offense and scheme that is built around his success.
But this doesn't consider room for growth. If BC's current roster has taken twice as many collegiate snaps as our current roster, than that 37 rank disparity is eliminated, and likely surpassed.
I would take either Harris from Alabama over Dillon
That'll preach, or Trey Sermon from Oklahoma, Etienne from Clemson, D'Andre Swift from Georgia, JK Dobbins from Ohio State, etc. Those are just off the top of my head.
You're just using a different term. Raw talent, no, they are not as good. Talent being a gauge for quality football players? They are very good, as they've got a veteran team that has spent years developing together.
Two years ago there were plenty of examples to counter the theories you present here? So did fucorn forget how to coach? Did other teams figure them out? Or (as I certainly believe) is our team much younger and inexperienced and without a high caliber qb like Evans? Talent matters and we lack it. The talent we have is raw.
But after 8 games those young players should be experienced as seniors...../s
I would like to see a analysis of how this team rates in comparison to other rebuild years. Is this a one-off massive attrition situation, a case of gross negligence in roster management (as in the critically important DT position and the horrible misses over the past 4 years), or flat out poor coaching wrt to in-game adjustment or game prep (offense). Looks to me like a perfect storm of all three with two of them being in full control the coaching staff, which is disturbing.
First, there is no reason for Coach Fuente to decline that holding penalty. The goal is to push the opponent back, 1 less play but in reality they gained 12+ yards. BC did change their defense at the end of the 2nd quarter to take care of a part of our run game, but what I cannot understand why we don't use much mis-direction plays. We seem to just line up and say we are going to run the ball (just a thought). And finally, if you take out the W&M game and the ODU game and just look at the Power 5 games we have had, I don't think we have scored a touchdown in he 3rd quarter all year, so what does our coaching staff use half time for? Maybe a couple of beers and talk of the homecoming queen. Either way, I will still go to the games and support the team. I was there when would we used to say we were the best 2 - 9 team in the country, I just hope those days don't come back.
Why is the goal to push the other team back? Why can't it be to get the D off the field as soon as possible and your O back out there?
My issue is that the offense is much the same as it was under stiney and co... inconsistent, can't run the ball, mistakes, penalties, long stretches of games where they disappear... I thought Fuente would be much better in offense than he has been. I thought honestly we would score 35 points a game with ease under him.
What happened to the tempo too? If the answer is inexperienced personnel I'm going to choose to not buy that.
2 reasons for this
1. We don't have a QB that can run it effectively. Willis can make some throws but constantly makes wrong reads. JJ doesn't have the arm and is slow. Hendon hasn't picked things up yet.
2. The D is not good enough this year. He's trying to keep them off the field. Last year, the D was ok but no RB or WR.
We have seen very little of the offense Fuente wants to run. Evans was probably the closest but he didn't have a RB. While this may come as a surprise, coach is actually adjusting the offense to his personnel. We just aren't there yet. It will come but it won't be this year.
Ok number 1 is Fuentes fault.. he's had 3 recruiting classes to recruit the right qb for his system. If he has the wrong guys, it's on him. Also, the offense is plenty experienced... how long do we need to wait? 6 years?
Totally agree. If this is Feunte's MO, he needs to run his system. If there's an issue doing so because of the personnel, you're not recruiting the right guys for your system.
Or if you are a good coach, you modify/dial back your system to adjust to your personnel that you currently have. It appears that his system is all he knows, and all he wants to run, and therefore they seem to be struggling to make modifications/adjustments at halftime, etc. Its like we are trying to put a square peg in a circular hole (or whatever that catchphrase is). If he and his coaches are great football minds, they should be able to put your players in positions to make plays they are capable of making, even if this digresses from "your system" or what you know. I am beyond frustrated and disgusted with our coaching staff and our production.
I'm fairly confident that Fuente does have the QB to fit his system. His name is Quincy and he's a freshman. For now he's working with guys that have some positives, but still not his ideal QB.
I think he did. First, he went out and landed Evans who, for some reason, left early. Then he went out and landed 4 star Hooker. Yes, Hooker hasn't gotten it all yet but I think we were all excited when he came on board. Then he went out and landed QP.
The thing is, JJ and Willis should have never played for us. Had Evans not left, or had Beamer had a room full of QBs to hand off, JJ would never touch the field. The "miss" may be Hooker but there were several schools willing to take that bet.
It would have been a logical hand off of Evans to Hooker to QP.
He really hasn't had 3 recruiting classes, he's had 2. Sure, the first class in was "his" but they were all guys Beamer recruited with the addition of Jerod. It's unrealistic for a coach to come in in December and expect him to make a splash with recruits when most have already decided, and it would be poor form to look at who we extended a scholarship to and renege it.
The fallacy in this argument is that most of the top kids don't decide until signing day. How many have we had "flip" late? a bunch. It happens all the time. So the theory that a coach can only get a kid if he has been recruiting him for 2 years is not true, IMO.
How many scholarships did we have available by the time Fuente was hired? We know he scored JE. That was a huge, HUGE get. But what else did he have to workwith? Not much.
He also got Murphy as a transfer....looking at 2015 and 2014 those were big classes. We didn't have that many spots to give.
If there was a paxton lynch or david wilson clone out there, the numbers would have worked out.
This is such an absurd take. At the end of the day you just can't expect a freshman QB to play at a top level. So far Fuente has taken a 4-star QB in every class while also managing to bring in transfers to ensure veteran backups are available. You just can't do any more than that. The only reason it's been an issue is that one of those transfers (who was a perfect fit) inexplicably left a year early, then his first ever returning QB got hurt in game 3. Objectively speaking, QB recruiting and management has been a strong point and we've consistently had average or better play despite injuries and youth.
Now if both Hooker and Patterson don't work out by the time they are sophomores or juniors? Sure, we can talk about how it's not good enough, but so far the QB management has been as good as anybody could reasonably hope.
Just curious where this comes from:
I have gone back and watched video of JJ to convince myself this statement is true. The problem is it's not. He can throw a ball 50 yards in the air and he has done it regularly. 50 yards in the air is adequate for almost ANY play.
length of throw is not an indication of having an arm. I can throw the ball 50 yards, but I cant throw a 12 yard out rioute to the wide side of the field with out a 76 year old grandma jumping it for a pick 6.
I LOL'd because I had this exact same thought.
We are averaging 21 points per game over the last two seasons. That's not great for an offensive guru who promised not to put every game on the backs of the D.
My issues with Fuente at this point surround fundamentals, execution, and discipline. Fundamentally, we can't get the little things right - line up correctly, don't jump pre-snap. Executionally we shoot ourselves in the foot every game - fumbleitis has mostly cleared up (not battle of Bristol bad anymore), but catch a flippin punt, clean up the errant snaps. Everyone gets the dropsies, why are ours always drive ending 3rd downs. Discipline has been an issue all year on and off the field. We have to be one of the more penalized teams in all of football. We aren't good enough to be giving those yards away.
Dead center at #64 for fewest per game
https://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/698/p2
So we must only be leading in having them at inopportune moments that cost us games.
AS for the offense...
Look at the QB situation we've had over the past handful of seasons.
-Brewer; transfer...1.5 seasons starting
-Jerod Evans; juco transfer, 1 season starting
-Jackson; staring as a redshirt freshman, then gets hurt second season early on
-Willis; transfer from an 0-12 team.
We haven't had that long-term QB that's gotten into the system, learned under Fuente and from everyone else, and then taken the reigns. And Fuente is still getting his footing. I think the chances of QP shinin in 2 years is high because everything is working in his favor. But VT has never been set up for the one-year QB to be successful. And that's been what we've had (more or less) over the past several seasons.
MV, TT, LT, and JE all succeeded in their first year at the helm
I like most of what you said here. What I really don't understand is that Fuente repeatedly points fingers at Willis where As he would come to the defense of Josh Jackson no matter what. Plus yesterday he said Hooker wasn't ready and if he's referring to the bad snap it wasn't just high but Hoyt snapped it 2 seconds too early. The snapping issues, penalties and dropped balls can't be blamed on Ryan Willis.
Here's what Ryan Willis has: Deep ball to the outside and the ability to run. He's much better than JJ in those two areas. Now his limitations are the short and middle game although I see him throwing a little better in the middle of the field. But why can't cornelsen set the game plan and play calling to his strengths? It's really a mystery. And relying on the QB to run the ball is a terrible plan especially the potential for injury. I mean we are 8 Games in, we still can't run the ball with the Running back. Thats on the coaches, not the players. You gotta come up with some way for the RB to gain good yards,
BTW..if they really wanted to go to the Zone read why not start hooker in the 3rd quarter when we have time and zone read it all the freaking way down the field. He tried it with Quincy 4th quarter with us down and took way too much time off the clock. Again makes no sense. If anything we needed some quick strikes and Hendon would have been better suited for that. I'm very frustrated with the offense and when we giving the ball back on turnovers and 3 and outs, off course the defense will eventually give up points.
I think Dax is a beast...he need to play MIke Line Backer going forward. Anyone know what happened to Rayshad Ashby yesterday? I'm nt concerned about the defense a least bit. GT is in the rearview mirror..
Its the offense stupid
Ryan Willis makes bad decisions WAY more often than JJ does. It doesn't matter what play is called if he's trying to force throws, or locking into his top receiver. It works out sometimes, because he does have a strong arm, but it's not hard to see how he threw a bunch of picks if he didn't have talented receivers bailing him out.
Agree on the RB stuff though. We have to figure out how to get someone going, and it does seem like each time someone puts a few good runs together, suddenly there's someone new in there, who's running into the back of the line. That's troubling, and definitely at least partially on the coaches (but also, you know, on the dude running into his own line).
Willis was 16/19 for 212 with 2 TDs, 0 INTs at half--a very nice half of offensive football. Fuente said BC switched their D sometime late second quarter-ish and lo and behold the offense looks like trash in the second half, with Willis going 9/23 for only 69 yards after half. Sounds like one team made adjustments and the other team didn't. Or, if they did, the adjustments were entirely ineffective; either way, that's a coaching issue.
We did make adjustments. After BC went with two deep safeties, we tried to exploit the suddenly emptier box with the run game. It should have worked, we had the numbers advantage. But Willis made some bad reads in the zone read, and some of our linemen just got beat. Right adjustment, poor execution. (Hmm, didn't somebody say something about that recently?)
Also, go back and watch how quickly Willis leaves the pocket before he was damn near broken in half vs after. He missed some open receivers even after BC dropped their second safety, because he was leaving the pocket much sooner after taking that hit.
Yep, like I said, if they made adjustments, then they were totally ineffective--you seem to agree there. As for Willis' execution, hasn't he been terrible at operating the read-option run game since his first start at Duke? I'm sure the coaches knew about that deficiency long before he took over. I'm no X and O guy, but if everyone who watches 4 minutes of tape knows Willis can't operate read-option run plays, isn't it on the coaches to reduce/eliminate those and find other more effective ways to run the ball? Zone read can't be the only run plays in the playbook, I hope, particularly when they weren't effective even with JJ.
Willis also took a massive hit. He seemed rushed and made a lot of bad choices in the second half. I commented to the people I was sitting with, we might need to play Hooker or QP for the rest of the game.
Sure. But the adjustments can't just be on the coaches. Willis is the one out there making the reads, and he was pretty consistently making worse reads in the second half. He needs to adjust to the new defense just like the coaches do. This is almost exactly my point.
In the 2nd half I think Willis was seeing 22 BC defenders, after that hit in the 1st half.
Not really fair when the interception bounced off Hazeltons chest
Not sure of the exact injury or severity, but Ashby was seen in a walking boot around campus during the week leading up to the game. Dax and Kearney were really solid yesterday backing up Ashby and Rivers.
I seem to remember Foster speaking highly of Kearney but then he most of the talk shifted to Hollfied, Rivers and Ashby. I guess he got lost in the mix until now.
Could be wrong but I believe one of the first people high on Kearney was TKP's own beloved cheese hating analyst
Wait. When did Fuente point fingers at Ryan Willis?
At every single press conference. Listen to how he talks about JJ and about Willis.
This is not going to bode well for us in recruiting. Players want to go somewhere they aren't going to be thrown under the bus and they are going to be treated right.
You honestly expect that 17 and 18 year olds are paying attention to the head coach's press conferences, and then have developed the emotional intelligence to see through the coach speak to infer that someone is getting thrown under the bus?
Most adult fans don't get close to that level of analysis on a week by week basis.
Oh and one more thing...we made the wrong hire...should have been Tom Herman. way better recruiter, yah lose to Maryland but at least he's in the national spotlight.
Don't think we had the choice
Stop being ridiculous and dramatic. 1) Tom Herman didn't want to come here 2) He lost to Dana Holgersen this weekend in case you missed it. Fuente beat him last year with Josh Jackson at QB, and you've implied you don't think JJ is any good. So how exactly did that happen then?
Good grief people.
JJ is no good in Corny's offense.
While I agree with argument 1, argument 2 is pretty bad. This isn't the same WVU team we beat last year and for a better comparison Tom Herman beat the WVU team we beat last year by 2 TDs to our 1.
I agree it's not ideal to compare coaches and wins using the transitive property because of all the extenuating circumstances, but I do think it's worth bringing attention to Fuente getting a now forgotten about win against a solid WVU team on a big stage with a redshirt freshman QB making his first start when many never expected him to start a game at VT.
Since we've gone down the road though I'll just point out that WVU lost Will Grier for the season on the 3rd drive of the game against Texas so that's probably not a useful data point either.
I prefer not having someone who conducts himself in such a way that headlines like this get written about him.
Tom Herman Is The Biggest Jackass In College Football
Not only that, he didn't leave Houston until the season after we hired Fuente, and it isn't because he wasn't getting offers.
All we had to do was forcibly unretire Beamer for one more season, and then Herman would have been ours. Duh.
(heavy /s in case someone wants to misunderstand)
Well savoy did catch the ball and have a decent return when we ran into kicker!
Coaches are always going to get second guessed. Punt in fourth down instead of going for it, second guessed. Go for it on fourth down and don't make it, second guessed.
Wait, this thread is not an irrational fear that Fuente is going to Kansas?
He's going to the Pokes
with regards to going for it on 4th and 1, thats actually the right call. Advanced metrics and statistics back it up. Part of the reason the rams are so successful in the NFL this year is because they're going against old man "4th down punt time" mantra, and going for it much more often.
Think of it this way the odds of a team getting >1 yard are pretty good, on your own 50 down a score? sure go for it, you get it, continue the drive you're in good shape. Can blame the play call or anything else but the decision to go for it was not necessarily the wrong one, in fact it typically increases your chance to win. Add to the fact that our defense was completely gassed at that point and imo you gotta go for it
I'm starting to wonder if the program was actually left worse than we thought and the last two years they were able to maybe something with it because of experience and a few playmakers.
we may have been blinded by those results and raised expectations too early, rather than realizing we are rebuilding and getting the guys that truly fit the new system.
If we were the same 4-4 that we are but with the losses being @FSU, @Duke, ND, and BC, this season would feel so different. The FSU game really really raised the expectations of the fan base for this season in particular, especially after all of the offseason attrition due to grades, legal issues, and NFL. Turns out the Noles aren't that good either.
This ignores the fact that ODU is digshit and we lost them. We are more talented than ODU and any loss to a team like that is on the coach
Are you saying that you wouldn't feel differently about this season if the losses were @FSU, @Duke, ND, and BC rather than @ODU, ND, GT, BC? Help me understand what you're arguing here.
If we were 4-4 (or 5-4 if ECU didn't cancel), with the four losses being @FSU, @Duke, ND, and BC, the tone around the program would be more or less "this is what a lot of us expected" rather than going from the high of "suck on that lunch pail defense" at FSU to open the season to the low of losing at ODU when we're ranked #10 just a few weeks later.
Idk reading this you must have either edited your comment or I replied to the wrong person. I agree with what you are saying. It's not necessarily the # of kisses it's who they were to
I've been saying the same thing amongst my group of Hokie roundtable friends. I think the players that have left/dismissed are an indicator of a cultural issue that Fu is working to fix.
He didn't forget how to coach overnight. This year's team has talent/youth gaps, and those are not fixable within the year.
With all due respect, lack of execution is precisely why we lost. As Fu said, that's on the both the coaches and the players.
In the post game interview, Bud said,
"I'm not proud of the result but it was at least a winning effort. We have to execute and be more consistent on a regular basis."
"We have simulated some things but there are certain formations that in the heat of battle you question if they are ready for that? I kind of held back a little bit tonight but at the same time, I think that's what the game plan was. I wasn't going to do a lot of zone pressure because of the wheel routes. I was concerned about that."
So, do you disagree?
If not, why is it assumed that there are plays the offense could have called that would have worked...better yet what were they?
We have a finesse, zone read/RPO-based offense. Execution is everything.
Precisely what I said about Deshawn McClease among other things. Why run the smallest running back up the middle instead of Peoples or Holston? Sure, if everyone gets blocked it might work with McClease. But that hasn't really happened with Virginia Tech football in a long time.
...so it's an execution issue.
Unless a play is a sacrifice to set up something else, no one runs a play assuming it won't work. If you can't block the prospective tackler, don't give him the opportunity to make the play.
The guys you mentioned had 13 carries for 41 yards, and one of those was for 12 yards. No one on our roster was going to do any better.
Consistency issues (catching, blocking, snapping, unforced penalties) aside, our problem on O (IMO) is that we have a QB-centric offense and don't have a QB that can execute both the zone read and the RPO. Our problem on D is a lack of experience and perhaps talent. We aren't very good right now. Hopefully the newbies will get valuable experience that will pay off down the road.
Fu took the last of Frank's good players and made chicken salad out of chicken shit for a couple years. What we're experiencing now is the cost of a coaching transition. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Time to own it, appreciate it for what it is, and look ahead.
I'm not denying that it would work if everyone got blocked. The problem is that not everyone gets blocked. We know everyone isn't going to get blocked. Why put McClease in that position over and over again and hope that something that hasn't happened yet will finally happen? It's foolish.
I think you make a good argument for not running the play. But I don't think it matters who the back is; in those circumstances competent defenders are going to make the tackle.
I also think the issue with our running game is as much, maybe more, about the QB as it is the back. In the zone read, one or more defenders are left unblocked and the QB accounts for that in the "read". For the running game to work consistently, the QB has to make the right read and be a credible threat to run. When the D accounts for all the various running options, then the RPO dictates that you throw. The QB then has to select the right receiver and throw it accurately.
I don't think we're seeing good reads (any reads?) and I don't think opposing DCs are scared of Jackson or Willis running. Our QBs also aren't setting the world on fire in finding/selecting the open receiver.
I stole these numbers from a poster on 247 who did the analysis
These are the 3rd quarter numbers from 6 games vs Power 5 opponents this season:
- VT has been outscored 49-14
- Since October (4 games), VT has been outscored 49-7
- VT has been shut out in 4 games
- VT has gone 3 and out on their opening possession in 4 games, including their last 3 games.
- VT has advanced past midfield on 10 drives, only scoring on 2 of them.
- VT has more turnovers (3) than scoring drives
- In a pivotal game against BC, VT started the 3rd quarter with 11 plays for 9 yards, 3 punts, 0 first downs, and a turnover inside our own redzone.
We can keep saying it's 'young players' or 'just execution,' but the numbers show the offensive coaches aren't very capable when it comes to mid-game adjustments. It's the staff's responsibility to put the pieces we've got in position to succeed, and they're not doing that, either. If the players can't execute certain plays, you've got to call different ones that are more effective.
It doesn't show this at all. You're assuming that is the reason. I could just as easily argue that it shows that young players are not executing adjustments made mid-game due to inexperience. Or I could argue it shows that inexperienced players faced with adjustments on the other side of the ball are getting confused and not executing the gameplan as is because they are unsure of how the defensive adjustments affect their assignments on play.
Again, this is an assumption. The plays being called could very well be the ones that our players currently have the most practice with and highest margin for success to execute.
The one thing that is constant is no matter what the reason, execution in the 3rd Quarter drops significantly no matter there is or is not adjustments made by coaches.
Whatever you need to tell yourself. I just don't think we're going to agree.
Willis threw for like 220 yards in the first half, and had <70 the rest of the game. Offense was pumping against GT until it just completely went to shit. To me, that shows the players are capable of executing. Stating 'the inexperienced players aren't executing' is ridiculous to me. These guys have played football their entire lives - you don't suddenly completely forget how to play. The fact that we're so regularly seeing them perform, then suddenly stop, especially with this level of frequency and regularity just after halftime, doesn't play into 'young kids not knowing what they're doing and poor execution of the gameplan'
I find it interesting that you're trying to point to the GT game while making an argument that it isn't an issue of the players not executing, when two dropped passes and an offensive PI resulted in 3 of our 5 non-scoring drives. That isn't play calling or adjustment issues. It's execution errors, plain and simple.
But hey, whatever you need to tell yourself.
5 consecutive drives, 37 total yards, all after moving it down the field with ease.
but hey, we dropped a couple passes.
You're lamenting 5 drives, 3 of which stalled because of dropped passes and an offensive PI. You're arguing in circles here.
Our 3rd and 4th quarter offense has been terrible all season. I'm not 'lamenting 5 drives.' I'm pointing out what has been a trend all year, yet you're still trying to look the other way like coaches have no control over anything that goes on on the field.
Even if you stick with the (very minor example in terms of the whole season) GT example, we're talking about a chance at 20 offensive plays averaging 0.5 yards per play, and you're excusing it all bc of 3 drops. You're doing the same thing.
Well, I don't need to tell myself anything about you making assumptions. It's just what you did.
And I didn't say I believed the reasons I gave, I used them as other examples of assumptions that can be easily dismissed.
The "these guys have played there entire lives" line is hyperbole because every team and player in the NCAA and NFL have execution problems. Playing their entire youth doesn't stop that from happening.
I don't have a complete answer to the issue going one but as Illinois is pointing out there are clearly execution errors, like drop balls, which has nothing to do with coaching. Like all complicated issues though I am willing to bet a mixture of a lot of factors are what's causing our problems.
The thing that's frustrated me the most has been his lack of consistency/adaptability in the run game. Whether we play JJ or RW, I don't have faith in them to lead us to win the game. Yet even when starting our backup QB who Fuente has shown plenty of frustration with, he's not doing him any favors. Peoples is averaging 12 carries per game, Clease is only getting 8. Both have good YPC and have shown to be effective AND will take some of the load off of whoevers quarterbacking us. There's just no good reason to not run.
I saw in a different thread people dismissing Travon McMillian's production this season because it's mostly due to the volume of his carries, but that's the point. He's on pace to easily rush for 1000 yards again, which shows that his freshman year isn't a fluke. It just doesn't seem like Fuente knows how to run the ball and implement that into our offense. Looking at the numbers makes it no surprise that Ford didn't want to come here, and makes it seem highly unlikely that Tyree will come here either.
It's awesome to read these comments against the constant complaints in the stands during the ga e that we ran the ball too much.
I was one of those people in the stands. I didn't know if I could watch them run the ball for 0 or -2 on a 2nd and 8 again. I was no where near sober for this game and I need to rewatch it but it seemed like every play.
I can understand that when actually watching the game and getting frustrated at pretty much everything that was happening, but I can't imagine many peoples will argue that we run too much when actually taking a step back and looking at the big picture.
I don't remember hearing those complaints. I was too busy watching the paper airplanes flying around.
We're 2.5 years into Fuente's tenure. I'm not liking the growing sentiment he's not qualified or not competent enough to be our coach. For all the goodwill we earned with the "Virginia Tech is different" because we gave Frank enough time to develop something good, I have a bad feeling we're on the verge of lighting that whole reputation on fire because of our impatience now.
I know there are few, if any, who are outright saying they want Fuente gone, but the conversation is quickly moving in that direction, and I'm not sure I am comfortable with the current collective mindset right now.
I mentioned this in another thread, but this fanbase truly does not know how to handle a genuinely bad season. The consistency we had under Beamer was insane, and we got too accustomed to it. If we actually miss a bowl game this season, I think people are going to lose their shit. And if that happens, we could be on the cusp of a Tennessee-level mistake. Not that I think Whit would put Fuente on the hot seat after one season, but if you get enough fans acting like imbeciles, Fuente might tell his agent not to stop taking calls from other interested programs.
It reminds me A LOT of the insanity around NC State basketball. They think they're an equal peer to that of UNC and Duke, and when they're not actively challenging for conference and national titles every year, they are calling for the heads of staff.
maybe because we had 4 straight bad seasons before FU came in, now we want wins and the issue is the offense
Our definition of bad isn't the national definition of bad. We run Fuente out of town either this year or next and we're going to ruin a hell of a lot of Goodwill we have nationally. We still haven't had a losing record season since 1992, and this is the first year under him where we have legitimately disappointed based on expectations, and even then all the experts knew we'd have struggles.
If your definition of a bad season is a winning record and a bowl, you're proving my point.
Come on, how are we different from any other P5 team when the product on the field is garbage? This is fan-peacocking or something.
You appear to be intent on proving his point.
Reminds me of the Brian Kelly quote on Game Day this past weekend...talking about Bammer and Saban "They have a different business model than us." Such a deep quote on many levels. And completely agree with him. I never want to end up with that business model that Bammer has. I too am uncomfortable with the win NOW at all costs mindset and not allowing a new coach to feel comfortable. A lil unrest and uneasiness should be expected with slow and bad results, but not a feeling of impending doom and no support.
(Same goes for the X coaching job is open in basketball, OMG we're gonna lose Buzz. Support him. Make him feel welcome. Enjoy the time we have him. He's not going anywhere in the near future.)
I believe Fuente and Buzz both accepted their VT job, in no small part, due to the perceived perception of patient and realistic fans.
Buzz probably. Fuente probably not. Every season from 2012-2015 was the end of the world it seemed.
People have a short memory. I was in school at VT during the early 90's when Beamer had had about 6 years to get the program in gear. Beamer was not very well liked by the students or the faculty and VT football was pretty mediocre. I remember people thinking he would be fired pretty soon. And then 1995 happened and Texas went down in the Sugar bowl. People need to relax and think about what this program looks like in two years.
I still have faith and I keep thinking about Fuente's game plan and execution looked pretty darn good against Arkansas in that come from behind bowl win a few years back.
FTFY.
Beamer was *very* nearly fired in 1991-92 timeframe. Very close.
The only thing that was super concerning yesterday was trying to run the ball and going three and out on our first three or four drives of the second half. It felt like the coaching staff was trying to make something work that wasn't going to work.
I'd like to believe there was some point to it, but...
D had a two-high safety look. We had the numbers in the box. We should be easily getting 5 yards a pop if we do an inside zone scheme in those situations.
Staff was taking what the D was giving them. Players couldn't make it happen. Simple as that.
So the question now is "Why wasn't it working?"
Because other teams will also do this. There needs to be some development there, or trick, or scheming, or something that will shake that loose.
This is actually something I really hope French covers in one of his film reviews. Something broke down in that stretch, but I'm not football smart enough to know what it was.
We were manhandled upfront. If you (as the D) can stop the run with 4 lineman and then flood your backfield with 7, then you're winning the battles that will help you win you the war.
A great way for Tech to have taken advtanage of this would've been to FURTHER make the numbers in our box work in our favor - zone read option, which essentially takes a DL out of the equation of attacking an OL. But, as noted, Staff doesn't trust Willis to run this successfully all the time, so it hasn't been used very often (and I couldn't tell you how many times we ran it in the second half, if any).
EDIT: I can't math today.
Or you're cheating.
I'm pretty sure you're cheating.
Damn, IH, you're on fire today
I thought this post was making a reference to Tim Settle and Ricky Walker until I realized that it was actually referring to the maximum number of players allowed on the field for one team and then it reminded me of having Tim Settle and Ricky Walker on the line at the same time and how we don't have that any more and then I became sad.
Fair. That it took us as long as it did to realize that it wasn't working was the bigger concern for me.
We haven't been able to run the ball effectively all year, IIRC. It seems like Fuente's offense is geared toward throwing the rock as much as our defense is geared toward defending the pass.
It might work out after a bit of maturation in the receiving corps and the development of the right QB (read: QP) but at the moment it's frustrating to watch us try to achieve a balance that doesn't appear to be there.
If it's geared towards that, it's only because our weakness at RB is notorious at this point (with all due respect to The Peoples Champion). Our OL was supposed to be awesome this year but has proven to be marginally better (IMO). We've got massive depth at WR so we certainly throw it out more.
Fuente and Corny aren't dumb people. There's a reason why they were sought after so much by other teams in the off-seasons. They know what they are doing. They will tailor the O to match our skillsets as they have this year.
In conclusion - everyone needs to "RELAX". This was always going to be a rebuilding year but our win at FSU gave us unreal expectations.
I'm going to throw this out there: If Fuente and Co. win the next three games and we play Clemson in the ACCCG, would you guys still feel like this year was a disaster?
I'm not saying we're going to do it, but there's a fucking chance we do it. Maybe it's my Hokie-tinted glasses but I don't think it's improbable that we go 3-0 to finish the season.
I'll cross that bridge when, and if, I get to it.
short answer: no
long answer: no
I posted something similar in another thread, but having given myself a chance to cool off and think clearly a bit, I'm 110% still aboard the Fuente train. While I might not appreciate his approach to fans and media as much as I loved Beamers approachable nature, I still think Fuente is a great coach and the right one for VT right now. Cup half full guys, cup half full.
Go Hokies!!
Has everyone here watched this? In context, Fuente's comments make sense to me.
Fuente presser
Definitely worth watching, especially for anyone who had a strong negative reaction to his comments.
That being said, I get he is not going to throw Corn under the bus, but I hope he realizes those 10 school records in 2016 came in part from Evans making something out of nothing with his legs, especially on 3rd downs.
The school records came with a roster full of players he didn't recruit or coach up, and a JUCO QB who was on campus a month and a half before the season started - who he didn't develop. In any other setting, touting that scenario would sound absurd.
And the current roster is full of players he DID recruit, but hasn't had time to coach up, because either they just got here or they weren't slated to play this year.
So your point is what, exactly?
To me, you're just pointing out that we have insufficient data, either way. I don't mind people having a forceful opinion if it's based on something.
So make a case for something. Pick an action, and justify it. Otherwise, give Fuente the benefit of the doubt he deserves.
My concern with Fuente is that the teams looks bad against mediocre defense. Given his offence guru reputation I fully expected our offence to constancy look like our first three drives vs GT. Sure you're going to have some bad drives here and there, but we seem to just fall apart at times.
Stupid question. How do we know that Fuente is good or bad? Beamer took a while to win and now he's a HoF coach? Mark Stoops is FINALLY starting to breakthrough at Kentucky. What are the signs that we should stick it out vs pull the plug?
The problem is, I haven't seen any evidence that Fuente is a top notch coach for VT (wins and improvement). I also don't really know the signs that show that its time to move on.
The ONLY answer:
Give it time.
Whoever is downvoting Vtkey for saying "give it time" should stop.
edit: mark stoops stark moops btw
Yeah, there's been a lot (and I mean a lot) of down voting lately simply because you disagree with someone as well as at least one suggestion of banning people because they had an opinion on a play.
This needs to stop.