So I have watched the film, and I have some ideas. How about a little crowd sourcing to celebrate the victory?
To me, the story of this game after first watch was Virginia Tech's defense and the adjustments that caused their success to ebb and rise at different points during the game. Virginia made some adjustments. I am not sure if I see any kind of scheme adjustments in response. However, when VT needed stops, there was much sharper fits coupled with more physical execution of those fits that I have seen much of this season.
Or, I can kick sand on the offense, which really had very little ebb and flow the whole game. There was some success in the run game. But, the passing game, much like the end of last year, showed very little trust in Willis or the receivers to win one on one battles. The screens in key spots while the Hokies hung on to the lead were ineffective. When Willis had to go down the field when UVA got the lead, he wilted in the pocket. Often, he felt pressure before it was anywhere close and brought his eyes down instead of getting the ball out to the one on one. Finally, the throw to Keene was desperation, and Keene (like Turner early in the game and Kumah/Hazelton at different points in the season) that Willis or the coaching staff has to make a commitment to get 50/50 balls to one on one guys. Frankly, I hated Willis pounding his chest and talking smack. He didn't play well enough to justify the air time. Keene bailed him out with a spectacular play, and then the defense won the game in OT.
Comments
I'm curious to see if UVA's last few drives in regulation going so poorly had more to do with them becoming too conservative or adjustments made by Tech to stop them.
via GIPHY
I'd say they went totally conservative and it killed them. They had been slicing and dicing the secondary for a good portion of the game. Hell - even their first play in overtime was a pass for a first down. They were playing not to lose, instead of going for the kill.
I'd like to see the defense going from 1st half shutout to 4 straight TD drives allowed to making crucial stops late in the game.
I agree 100%. I thought the defense showed heart was generally was more physical at the point of attack. There were some obvious busts in the secondary and more late game missed tackles than you can consistently have, but all in all there was promise for the future in certain spots such as LB and d-end.
The offense is disappointing and Willis doesn't seem to progress with his ability to read the play, be it a read option run or a passing play where pulls his eyes down too fast time and time again. I love his heart and he deserves credit for hustle and continuing to play, but if he can't find a way to break through consistently in the passing game this season will be his last under center for the Hokies.
I thought the story of the game was more consistency in playing as hard as possible, the o-line getting to the 2nd level more frequently, good bounces, Tre Turner, shaky zone coverage, missed tackles, inaccurate throws and straight hustle.
You danced all around my biggest question. Fans have been roasting the play calling and Cornelson for months now. You say the coaches didn't show trust in Willis and many of the play calls were ineffective. A lot of people will see that statement and take away the idea that "the play calling stinks." However, you also point out that Willis wilted under pressure and overall played poorly. Many fans continue to sing Willis' praises- honestly I think it's mostly due to his emotional displays but it's shrouded with the idea that our coaches are holding back a highly talented QB.
How do you see the situation and how do you reconcile the quality of the play calling versus the limitations of the offense, specifically QB? What play calls do you think would be effective given Willis' limitations and our available skill set?
I think the lack of confidence in the quarterback factors in the play calling. That INT by Willis at the end of the half really seemed to dampen the confidence of Cornelsen in Willis reading the coverage. UVA did a bunch of confusing things and Willis looked like he wasn't seeing the field well. There are some things that could have been done to help with that (motions, especially the jet sweep to see if they have man away from the motion), but they went a different route.
I think VT's first half success was more from being the more physical group. But, their poor execution only lead to 7 points. The second half, those one or two busts looked much worse because UVA was so unstoppable.
I would like this topic as a dive into the play calling over the whole season. I think they curbed the play calling to fit Willis, and that hamstrung the offense. Did they run as much misdirection? Did they ask Willis to make reads and adjust plays?
Maybe a bigger off-season analysis on offense to style with Willis compared to history?
This! This! This!
This is why I'm still not on the anti-Cornelson bandwagon. Corn didn't forget how to call plays in two years. But he was absolutely calling plays this season to minimize mistakes by Willis, and that absolutely hamstrung our offense. And for people who wish we'd just take our chances, I really wish I could find the write-up Mason did about Fuente when we first hired him. It has absolutely shaded my perception of Fuente ever since. One thing Mason pointed out is that Fuente, despite being an offensive guru, is inherently conservative. Not in the same sense of Frank "There's three things that can happen when you pass, and two of them are bad" Beamer was conservative, but Fuente's first maxim will always be protect the football. And that's how we playcalled with Willis in, and that's why Willis's TD to INT ratio was outstanding and his QBR was one of the best in the ACC, despite him consistently making bad reads, leaving the pocket early, and throwing to the wrong receiver. The play calling played to his strengths, and he succeeded because of it, despite being an inherently limited quarterback who isn't perfectly suited to this scheme.
TL;DR. Corn didn't forget how to play call, and getting rid of him because the offense struggled under and injured JJ last season and Willis this season would be SEC fandom levels of stupid.
See, you can change someone's mind with an internet post.
Thanks for the clear, concise and rational post.
You originally said this:
Yes you threw shade on Willis, and I know I continue to beat the WR drum on this question, but with Hazelton out, UVA having at least one stud DB, who was going to be open? Didn't the 1v1 coverage enable them to put more guys into the WR formations at confusing times and space?
Am guessing Willis had a normal game, but UVA brought more to the coverage game and this enabled them to throw some coverage kung fu at Willis. This made Cornelson feel pretty risk averse. Wish I could have been to the game never feel like I truly believe downfield analyses unless i was there or have some kind of camera angle exclusively focused on the downfield.
It sounded like we have a WR who can be counted on separation in this recruiting class. May he stay with us and break 1000 yards next year. I continue to believe a #1 WR would make both the RB, QB, and other WRs look better, especially against teams with better DBs.
This is the question I'm most interested it. How do we assign blame (for lack of a better term)? I'm always curious what percent of performance is natural talent vs talent development vs on the field execution, and how each affects the other.
Can we break down the obvious special team lapse by loluva which led to the blocked punt? Blocking uva punts for td's always makes me smile
So was it me, or did Willis have quite a few of his passes batted down at the LOS. Was that more good plays on the defense, or a problem on Willis' part?
Credit to the Hoos for being effective in robber coverage, but Willis consistently failed to see the robber.
I like reviewing the adjustments like your first suggestion.
I liked how we came out physical and ran the ball well. It seemed like we got away from that in the 2nd and 3rd drives.
I also don't know why we kept rolling Willis. He doesn't do well at that it just seemed like a wasted play.
It seems to me that
1. There is a designed rollout to Willis's right on a high percentage of dropbacks;
2. If there is not a designed rollout, Will does not step up in the pocket but back peddles and rolls out to the right;
3. Most routes are in the 15 yard range.
This leaves a lot of defenders flowing to one side of the field and within 15 yards of the line of scrimmage once it is determined not to be a running play.
While I think it is completely justified to question Willis' ability to read a defense in the passing game, I feel like his running game was much improved on Friday. I wonder if he did a better job reading the linebackers or if it was just a result of the way the defense played him. A number of his runs on third down kept some drives alive.
The uplifting win deserves an uplifting review. Any chance you can highlight where young players are showing a lot of improvement?
French - based on the comments around the lack of confidence in Willis to read coverages, what plays or scheme would have had a good chance at success against Uva if The Hokies could execute more consistently?
I vote offense and especially play calling. That is entirely personal. I have learned to watch football better by reading your articles, but I feel like I'm further up the learning curve on defense than offense.
Thanks for the top notch analysis you provide, French!
Go Hokies!!
My vote is for defense, adjustments, and improvements by the younger players. In particular, review your assessment earlier in the year when you said there weren't really any younger players that you felt were showing a lot of promise.
For me, the analyses of the offense are so subjective in terms what was actually called, any audibles, reads, limitations of the QB.
Thanks, in advance, for whatever you do pull together. It's going to make my day, whatever it is.
I counted one slant/cross where Willis' pass wasn't behind the receiver. And that was a big gainer for TT. Hit our guys in stride and let them run. Cost us a TD in OT to Grimsley as well.
And rolling him out so he can scramble, so Snowden doesn't knock it down, to move the aiming point on blitzes all seems like a good idea. But he's hesitant pulling the trigger ad inaccurate when he does let it go. Waggles are a mess with Willis.
Not even mentioning the pocket presence, presnap adjustments, locking in receivers (don't throw a wheel to Holston against Thornhill when Holston runs the laziest wheel route of the season) and read options that are crippling his effectiveness right now. But he made a huge tackle, he scrambles with speed and guts and he's git a good arm. That's what people are seeing and remembering.
I'd like to see a breakdown of the first couple of drives on offense where we had great success running inside the tackles. To your point, we seemed to be getting a push and then we simply abandoned it. Was the success a result of the OL doing its job or of Peoples making things happen - or maybe bit of both?
Also, at about the 4:00ish minute mark (near the end of the game) we got the ball and completely abandoned any semblance of our offensive identity. For a coordinator who we think didn't trust Willis, he threw all his chips in on Willis on that drive. It was the worst series of the evening in my opinion.
Didn't they immediately bring another safety into the box after those first few big runs by Peoples? That should have really opened up the passing game, but Willis was behind or in front of his receivers all night.
While its maybe more macro than the uva film review, I'd like your thoughts on why both sides of the ball (especially the defense) seem to completely melt down beginning in the 3rd quarter. For 4 weeks in a row, we play a close 2 quarters of football and then the 3rd quarter looks like a completely different team on the field. I can't imagin its fatigue, as it begins as soon as they come out of the locker room.
Also, I think a more critical review of the offense would be great, as most fans seem to think Willis is playing well and making plays (which it sounds like you disagree).
Thanks in advance.
I vote for an offensive review. You can talk to me over and over about gap fits and players winning the point of attack and I am going to think, they are young, give them time to learn and hit the weights, but with the offense, they have had the time to learn and hit the weights, WTF is wrong with that side of the ball. Should I be grabbing my torch and rusty pitchfork and head to Cornelson's office or should I just accept that Willis is the back-up for a reason?