It's been a rough go for Virginia Tech since Week 1 of 2018 but the "sky is falling" narrative is way overblown. Justin Fuente actually has made a lot of progress. Some numbers: https://t.co/QDxPWdXGDE— Hale Tweets: Endgame 🦸♂️💎 (@ADavidHaleJoint) May 1, 2019
I think he really points out using facts instead of emotion what the Fuente era currently sits.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I'm not worried about Fuente at all. I think he's a heck of a coach and I'm confident that he will develop a great program and make us a competitor.
This x1000. No one is happy with last year, but the tendency to draw a trendline from 2017-2018 and project into the future with it is maybe not the way to go about this. We're not Clemson/Bama, we don't have the ability to instant-reload if we lose a whole bunch of people. But, we're definitely not nearly as far behind where we have recently been as a lot of people seem to think.
Also, RE transfers x1000:
let's just hope this =/= Foster returns the real problems. Went back and read all of French's breakdowns after rejoining TKPC...and oof. It took me this long to process just how bad our defense was last year. They'll all have to take a big step forward, and Reggie Floyd in particular is gonna need a bounceback year. Let's hope one or both of these things happens.
Having Hamilton as the safeties coach may help a lot as well since he knows inside and out what these guys should be doing.
We've seen Floyd do it though. Of all the returners, I think Watts might be the one who concerns me most. Recruited as a corner, had some problems, didn't look great at the spring game. Farley is a freak athlete, and was learning on the fly last year, Diablo has been good.
The other concern is going to be getting pressure. These guys should be better, but if the front four can't get any push, they're going to struggle.
My hope is that Webb is able to produce (it sounds like he has the attitude to come back from his injury) and he starts over Watts. One of the other young guys like Waller could also replace Watts.
Bud has had some good things to say about Crawford and it sounds like Garbutt has really taken a step in his development. I think Garbutt and Belmar will provide better DE play this year than last year.
The defense will be much better in 2019, because it has to be. We literally could not stop a GT play under 5 yards until their starters sat down. We gave up 632 yards to ODU, including 495 passing. A VT defense with ACC level recruits can not play worse than they did last year. Bud always wants to stop the run and force you to pass/be one dimensional. Pitt set records for yards per carry on the ground, and GT had 465 yards rushing- 0 yards passing. We can't play worse on defense- 2019 included. I'm very confident on that
You attempt at a positive comment is because we will suck less - depressing and comes across as not positive. I think we will be better because of various positive influences including Hamilton (huge), physical improvement at DE and LB, team "want-to" by dealing directly with the locker room issues and CB improves play.
The obvious ? is DT. Hopefully, via the by committee approach we will find some solid players and productions.
My comment was positive, but more importantly rooted in reality. In 2019 there are still major questions at CB and the entire DL. Major questions- this is not hating, or negative, or anything else- it is a fact. Watts was not a freshman last year, and Farley actually regressed performance wise as the year progressed. Are they going to be much better in 2019? And who are their backups? Webb - best case scenario- has not played a P5 down of football and is coming off 2 Achilles tears. Connor will play better I'm sure- like I said, there will be improvement/more depth of experience there. In terms or the DL? Wow, huge question marks. Who is starting next to Hewitt? Who is backing them up? At DE, you do have some starting production returning in Garbutt and Belmar, but Gaines is coming off a major injury and who else is there in terms of proven players? These are facts. And yes, I do think there will be big improvement over 2018.
Not arguing there are questions - there are and always will be. Your comment above doesn't state any of that - it just says we sucked and we can't possibly suck again.
Simply pointing out that is more of the same and isn't rooted in anything without context
I truly hope you're right, Bud. But I hope we improve for more reason than it's statistically impossible for us to do worse. Just sayin'.
I've always been surprised (let's face it, not that surprised) by how little the average fan actually listens to Fuente. Anyone who's listened to his interviews wouldn't be shocked by 2018 nor by a rebound in 2019. CJF has consistently said things like, "the progression of a program isn't always linear" and "I'm more concerned about the guys around the QB than the QB himself" - note he's put 3 different QBs with wildly varying strengths on the field and they've all been productive. He and Foster have both said there isn't a good way to overcome youth and it isn't always indicative of talent level - and then we see what happens with 8-11 freshmen on the field at a given time.
I agree with Hale's take here. Things went off the rails in 2018, but it isn't unreasonable to see a substantial uptick in the works for 2019 and (especially) beyond.
We have to remember that the defense put the offense in terrible positions last year as well. We were often forced to try and go 80-90 yards on drives and those drives usually start with conservative play calling to avoid giving the ball back that close to the end zone.
This is a fair take. UNC comes to mind. I know the defense did make some stout stops to prevent the touchdown but it seems that happened a lot and the offense was just trying to make room to punt it out and sort of reset at midfield.
While I very much agree with Hale's article (edit - to clarify, I think that we are not in 'panic mode,' but in 'critical of Fuente's tenure' mode), I want to challenge the fact that the defense is greatly responsible for the offense's struggles:
Our season was bad because our defense was bad. Our defense was bad because they were inexperienced.
The only legit beef fans should have right now I would think is whether the loss of upperclassman on D could have been foreseen/prevented through recruiting or whatever.
Which brings this to my primary concern: recruiting/talent level.
Can Fuente/Foster coach? Yes.
Can the position coaches be effective? Mostly yes with some questions that hopefully were addressed.
But if we don't consistently get the players, we're in for mediocrity.
I'm not talking so much 5 stars across the board...but VT did well for years with lots of athletic hungry kids that bought into the system and were developed.
I'm not saying we don't have those kids now, but I'm not convinced yet.
I agree this is the top concern with the staff in place. I'd feel much more optimistic of the future if we had some stud young players developing, but it's really hard to look at the roster get amped about the talent for 2020 and 2021. DL was as bad as I can ever remember as a Hokie fan last year, and yet the guys we signed last year are flips from Akron and Temple, and some waivers on 3* jucos. While I have faith in the coaches that we can get a contributor out of the group, that's not a sustainable level of talent across the board to have to get us back to fighting for ACC championships.
Hale doesn't really address recruiting in the article, and it is by far our biggest issue at the moment. Ignoring it in a piece like this, and also throwing in the comment about how long it took Beamer to get things up and running (when the state of the program couldn't be less similar) seems disingenuous
You have cited the one position where there is a significant talent deficiency (as far as 247, etc. are concerned). I think its been stated many times over that at nearly every other position we have almost uniform 4* talent for the first string. My impression is that we have a much more balanced team than most of the Beamer years. Fuente hasn't necessarily landed that crazy stud at RB or QB that punctuated many of those successful Beamer teams, but thus far the recruiting has been pretty good.
I'm not concerned about the state of VT football for this reason: A big part of "a turnaround" requires 2 things:
1) coaches who know what they are doing
2) player buy-in and engagement.
Frankly a I was FAR MORE concerned last year! (Before all the "changes").
In a turnaround you need talent and leadership. Being a leader in a turnaround is about inspiring AUTHENTIC hope. Not bullshitty fortune cookie sayings on a t-shirt crap, but a real sense that the players see a way to their future. You must gain their trust. Captivate their have hearts and minds...
Fuente, Foster and company can coach. The players have begun to establish leaders and have "gotten religion" AND the new additions to the coaching staff seem to bring the glue, energy and caring that can tie it together.
Last year, it seemed to me that at times the team quit. (Remember the beginning of the second half or the last 5 minutes of WAY TOO MANY games?!)
This team may not win every game, but they will believe and will not quit. I can live with a year or so of that!!! Hell, we might even win a bunch too!
regarding #1 - replacing Nix with Hamilton is certainly an improvement in that area. And of course the transfers out seem to have improved #2
Some people have been pointing to these stats for a long time but quite a few others want to hear nothing of it and believe anything other than wins and losses are just excuses. It's certainly interesting to see a sportswriter's take on the situation but I wouldn't expect it to change too many opinions about Fuente at this point.
Based on the discussions I've had here, some seem to believe VT football's baseline acceptable performance is to be Clemson of the Coastal- winning 10+ games and the division annually. I'd have to agree that it appears unlikely Fuente will ever meet that level of expectations; however, I happen to believe it's ludicrous to expect any coach to accomplish that feat.
Why shouldn't expectations be Clemson of the Coastal? Is it really ludicrous to expect VT to be a coastal division front runner every year, winning it more often than not? It's not like there are many obstacles to achieving that. The coastal is the worst division in P5 football. There aren't any dominant programs -- Miami is the only team that will (or should) annually pull more talent than VT. And our cross-over opponent is mediocre (BC has won more than 7 games once in the last 10 seasons). Lowering expectations invites mediocrity.
Miami was an elite program not very long ago and is in the middle of fertile recruiting grounds, GT has some football history and an excellent location, UNC is a huge NCAA brand that attracts talented players, Pitt is similar to VT historically, and even Duke and UVA have their selling points. From the P5 conferences, only Alabama, Oklahoma, Clemson and Wisconsin have won their division more than 50% of the time recently. We aren't on the level of Alabama or Oklahoma. Clemson is having a historic resurgence but they have long recruited better than VT and their profile and funding is on another level at this point. Wisconsin is the closest to VT but they have more money and the B1G West quality isn't much different from the ACC Coastal.
At best, VT can have a run like Wisconsin, which is essentially what we did from 2005-2011. Maybe we will get there again but frankly we completely failed to capitalize on the best years in program history from a fundraising perspective and I get the sense that many recent fans don't appreciate how uncommon and difficult of a task it is to consistently win at that level, as even many blue blood programs have endured long stretches of down years. If you truly believe "lowering expectations invites mediocrity", then why draw the line at the Coastal? Is it making VT mediocre to not expect to win the national title every year? If VT should easily win the Coastal more often then not, is Frank Beamer even a Hall of Fame coach, or barely an average one? He went 2-6 in BCS bowls and lost games to JMU, ECU, and Temple after all. Clearly we should've canned that guy a long time ago because he only accomplished the bare minimum here.
Agree 100%
Because that is what is actually reasonably and realistically attainable. The fact of the matter is that VT is light years behind at least a dozen programs (probably more) in terms of resources (e.g., revenue, support staff, facilities etc.). I'm not ignorant enough to set expectations at something that's essentially unattainable (which it sounds like we agree on). And don't get me wrong, I'm not short selling the difficulty of winning any P5 division consistently, and I definitely do not think VT, as currently constituted, is in a position to do so. I do, however, think a division title should be the minimum expectation, particularly in view of the crap makeup of the division. The minute something less becomes acceptable is the minute the program heads down the path toward national irrelevance. Here's to hoping that hasn't already occurred.
Maybe we're largely caught up on semantics. I agree that winning the Coastal is a reasonable annual goal for VT football, but I don't think it should be considered the minimal acceptable performance. In my view, if we dip below a Coastal title every 4-5 years and aren't consistently competitive even when we don't win the division, then we will have enough evidence to strongly consider a change.
Regarding the national perception of the program, unfortunately I will point out that VT hasn't been the preseason favorite to win the Coastal since 2012. And if you look at Coastal standings starting in 2012, VT finished 4, T-2, T-5, T-4, (Fuente hired) 1, 2, and T3. I think most of the damage was already done in the last 4 seasons under Beamer. I agree last year's results merit some degree of scrutiny and concern but I firmly believe it's still too early to panic or conclude that Fuente's tenure is a failure. I remain hopeful for solid improvement this season and then for things to stabilize as consistent Coastal contenders, almost always winning 5+ conference games even if we're not annual champions, in 2020 and going forward.
Amen- a bunch of mediocre programs with mediocre fan support. VT should be in the coastal division hunt every year. UVA and Duke have beaten VT 3 times total in 20 years. That's 1/3 of the division opponents right there. So that leaves UNC- whom we beat every year unless they have Marquis Williams and a 11 win squad, GT who is not running the triple option anymore and will likely continue to field average defenses and now nothing super special or tricky on offense. Pitt, the definition of mediocre with terrible fan support and can't recruit a 4 year QB to save their lives, etc. And Miami- yes, elite program in the past, potential 10 fold of VT, athletes all over the field, etc. VT used to go head to head with them for most of the past 20 years.. recently we can't win in their 1/3 full stadium though, which is a problem when trying to win a division. VT should be first or second here most years without a doubt.
Yeah, I have no time for any excuses about the Coastal being difficult to contend for every year. This is one of the absolute weakest divisions in P5 football.
VT should be in the hunt every year, yes. But saying we should own the division long-term ignores the fact that Miami is a sleeping giant, and they've been on the verge of awakening for a few years now.
This is not a "recent" problem. Between 2000 and 2012, we were 3-4 at Miami, and only 2 of those losses came before Miami lost their "elite program" status. Even when we were the dominant program in the Coastal and Miami was in the midst of their worst run in decades, a win at Dolphin Stadium was never a given.
Its not about inviting mediocrity. It's about understanding the circumstances and approaching the situation with a healthy dose of reality. Historically Fuente is a very good coach, and as the article points out, the offense has been consistently better, even under adverse circumstances. The danger in expectations not grounded in reality is that you could throw away the coach that really could get us back to that position, but you weren't willing to wait.
Probably because some of us watched Virginia Tech do exactly that for 8 straight years from 2004 to 2011, when we went 84-24 (53-11 in the ACC), and won 6 Coastal and 4 ACC titles.
Now I'm not saying it's realistic to demand that Fuente duplicate that. But 3 1/2 years into your tenure as a P5 head football coach, it's 100% your program. Good coaches are winning by that time. I do believe 2019 will be an improvement over 2018, but the time for excuses has passed.
Those are considered the best years in Virginia Tech program history for a reason. If the best years ever are the same as your annual expectations, you are almost assuredly going to be continuously disappointed.
As far as your comment about 3 1/2 years meaning it is 100% your program, that's a generalization that Fuente actually addressed in the interview with Joe. I think it's absolutely critical to look at the context of the situation in order to assess the expectations for each season and the program.
I think you could make the argument (and I would) that VT was actually better from 1995-2002. Here's a random game from 2000, when we were ranked #2 in the country. We were consistently a top 5 program from roughly 1999-2002.
VT vs Pitt 2000
I was hesitant to open this. What ever happened to Carter Warley?
Not sure you're gonna get a lot of people to agree that the Grant Noel era was part of the golden age of Tech football. 01 and 02 were some of the most frustrating years in Tech football for me.
The 1997 team lost to Miami.... of Ohio at Lane and then lost to UNC 42-3 in a bowl game. The 1998 team lost to Temple at Lane and blew a 22 point halftime lead to UVA at Lane.
The 2008 team lost to ECU and the 2010 team lost... at home... to JMU.
What point were you trying to make again?
Those teams ended up winning their conference. Did any of the teams I listed?
Your main memory from the 1995-2002 VT football era was Grant Noel?
Not beating Texas in the Sugar Bowl in 1995? Or leading in the 1999 National Championship game at the start of the 4th quarter? Or kicking the crap out of Alabama (1998) and Clemson (2001) and LSU (2002)?
Not Michael Vick, Lee Suggs, Cornell Brown, Andre Davis, Kevin Jones, Antonio Banks, Ken Oxendine, Bryan Still, Torrian Gray, George Del Rico, JC Price, Jake Grove, Jim Druckenmiller, Ben Taylor, Dave Kadela, Matt Lehr, Cory Bird, Nick Sorenson, Chad Beasley, Ernest Wilford, Willie Pile, DeAngelo Hall, Vincent Fuller, and probably 10 others I should also mention?
My favorite memories of tech football are from that time period and yea the highs from some of those years are our best football. But I was just saying I agree that our best consistent stretch was from 2004-11. Our worst seasons ended with 10 wins and a Chicfila Bowl. Where as the lows of the 95-2002 stretch were lower than that. Like getting blown out by UNC to end a 7-5 97 season and scraping out a win against Air Force in the Walnut bowl.
Honestly, it's a tough call for me between those two eras (IMO clearly separated by 2003, which I think we can all agree sucked LOL). Like you said, the relative lows of 1997 and 2001 from the 1995-2002 stretch were worse than anything from 2004-2011. But the newness of our national prominence was special in that first run.
On the other hand, back-dooring our way into to the ACC (thank you Mark Warner and UVA!) and then proceeding to basically kick the crap out of that soft-as-toilet-paper league for 8 years from 2004-2011 was AWESOME!
Let's just agree that both runs were great, and the fact that both started (1995 and 2004) with 0-2 starts followed by 10 straight wins showed the Virginia Tech grit we had at that time. And let's get that back soon!!!
Fuente was hired by his own accord, and that of Whit, to 'elevate the program.' Now, we're not only continuing to trend backwards and not meet the baseline, but we're making excuses why a 10 year run of Hokie football is somehow unattainable?
Some of us are saying that as fans we should give Fuente enough time to get the job done, instead of turning into Debbie Downers after one season of less-than-stellar performance where we still managed to keep two streaks going (bowl games and wins over UVa).
You've stated multiple times you think VT was a 6-7 year rebuild. I emphatically disagree with that.
I'm not a 'debbie downer' for not agreeing with your opinion that is as 'out there' to me as much as mine likely is to you.
So a few questions:
1) Do you thinking Fuente had any rebuilding to do?
2) if so how big of one?
3) if not why not?
Yes, there was clearly some rebuild because the 2016 recruiting class was terrible. However, I think 2-3 years of solid recruiting could have gotten us right back to where we were, competing for ACC championships. Even in our 'down years' we had NFL talent on the roster and were able to win the Coastal, and the sales pitch to recruits wasn't going to get much easier than having a media acclaimed, younger HC coming right off an ACC Champ Game appearance where we took Clemson to the wire. Yet we didn't capitalize there the way we needed.
Unfortunately for Fuente, he's hasn't been able to pull talent at the rate he needs, and his staff hires have both made his 'rebuild job' harder than it needs to be. Nix should have never been hired (he wasn't even working at the time), Mitchell should have never been hired, Lechty likely never should have been promoted, Scott had some promise but did himself in, and I will argue to this day that Cornelsen was completely unprepared for his role and had nothing on his resume that showed he was capable of being a top-25 OC. I believe Mitchell, Bud, and Wiles were (still are?) the only ones on staff who have previous experience coaching at a P5 program.
These are self-induced blows that make his job much harder.
So yeah, going into year 4 with a roster that still has holes, a coaching staff that is still largely unproven and continuing to learn on the job, very minimal recruiting traction, and a coach who has largely walled-off access to the program, expediting fan apathy, I do think is more of a product of the staff and leadership choices that were made - not a product of 'the rebuild' that was necessary. None of those were the fault of Frank's exit.
And i'll stick to my question of what makes you more qualified than Whit Babcock/Justin Fuente to judge whether or not Cornelson was prepared for that job?
You should probably note that Fuente isn't rebuilding Beamer's team, he's creating one of his own. And his recruiting classes have been pretty good.
From my perspective, it's unrealistic to expect this to be done in 2-3 years, particularly with where the program was during Beamer's last year.
Plus, we've already hired Fuente. To attempt to change him out now would be seriously disruptive, and cost us even more time. So from my perspective, we should absolutely give him the time he needs to get it right.
I actually like his style of play better than Beamer's. It's nice to have an offense that can keep you in games. I don't quite understand what's happening on defense, but Bud had earned a Mulligan, and he got it last year. This was the price of keeping Bud, but I'm expecting some improvement there this year.
Rebuilding different style AND culture!!! May be similar in values to Beamer, but he seems to be much more if a disciplinarian.
To me Fuente's grade is still an incomplete. Until Fuente put in his folks (and I think this is the first year we'll Really see it) and they matured past being a JV squad, we just don't know.
I think (as a whole) the team is in better physical shape under Fuente. Less emotion, more process...
.
Comparing Fuente favorably to Beamer is 100% a losing argument. Beamer is a top-15 all-time NCAA coach, and there is no way Fuente can reasonably hope to match that. Beamer's "style of play" was to physically beat the fuck out of the other team while slamming the ball into their end zone.
Man that was fun to watch, and in fact I'd argue that from about 1995 to 2010 Virginia Tech was the most popular style of play in all of college football. ESPN loved us, and VT was must watch TV for the casual football fan.
I'm talking about style of play, not long-term results. I love what Beamer did, as he put our program on the map. Yes, those were good times. Beamer was a master at doing more with less.
Was glorious some years (when we had stellar qbs), and pretty embarrassing in others. I enjoyed the success, but those games at the end of the season were often nail-biters and often downright disappointing, as those offenses depended on the heroics of one or two players. To win games, we needed points from special teams and the defense.
Counter arguments:
Given context, I don't know how you can take issue with any of the Fuente hires to date, with the exception of Nix. But, given the fanbase's frustration with the Lechty promotion, it would have been tough to promote JHam.
My biggest beef with Fuente is the holes in the roster. Would like to see a list of the big misses from the last two recruiting cycles - and not just the Devyn Fords, but the guys we were targeting we didn't make it into their top 5. LAHokie had a comment about this 6ish months ago where he listed 4 or so targeted DL recruits who eliminated us pretty early in the recruiting process - that has to change if Fuente is going to develop depth.
You contest every decision Fuente has made and are generally unhappy about the status of everything....but dont want to be called a Debbie Downer?
I'd normally ignore this, but responses like this do nothing to add to the conversation and seem downright juvenile.
I was prompted with a question about the status of the rebuild job at Tech - to which I replied. I've never 'contested every decision Fuente has made' - I addressed key areas where the program could improve - nor am I 'generally unhapppy about the status of everything' - that's an absurdly childish accusation to even begin to make.
I explained my stance on why I feel the rebuild job might seem bigger than it is in reality. I'd hope that we're all mature enough to understand context and move on.
we're not
Fair.
Hate to be that guy but the facts that only really matter are that we went 6-7 last year and our record has gotten worse every year under Fuente. The offensive improvement is great, and the defensive turnover is a legitimate reason for our struggles last year, but you can't just point to one area of improvement and ignore the areas of concern. I think Fu is a very very good x's and o's coach, but thus far he has left some things to be desired when it comes to running the program from a macro perspective. Our offensive talent level and production has greatly improved, but both areas on the defensive side of the ball have fell off of a cliff last year. He's obviously capable of putting a productive offense on the field, but I worry that he's not supporting Bud enough to put him in a good position to be successful.
How is FU not supporting Bud enough?
Scheme? Personnel? Overall program direction?
I get that he's the head coach, but I find it interesting that Fuente gets all the heat for the defensive collapse. Bud Foster is the associate head coach and defensive coordinator. He fielded the worst defensive unit of his career and failed to recruit anywhere close to our offensive recruiting. Yet he seems to be completely exempt from criticism by our fanbase.
When you're considered the best defensive coordinator in college football for more than two decades, you tend to get the benefit of the doubt.
Exactly.
For some reason, it seems like Fuente takes double the heat, because Bud takes none. The defense was a colossal disappointment last year. If there's a place we need performance (and recruiting) to pick up, it's there.
I agree. We can't forget that the recruiting dip in the uncertain period of Beamer's exit was uncertain for Bud as well. We have had some misses on D in recent years but have also had some pretty big hits. I think the ship will be righted but we sometimes forget how short 3 years is in the scope of a program. Fuente has essentially stated over and over again that the overhaul is not following a logical progression of a rebuild because the elder talent left by Beamer was good but the cupboard was bare further down the lineup.
Defensive line recruiting has had obvious issues. But, that is nothing new with VT defense even through the years of fielding top ten squads. I have faith in this staff and only hope Bud stays around long enough for the stars to align into something special.
Yes, and if Beamer left the cupboard bare on defense and there were player issues, Bud and Charlie were here the whole time. Why didn't they recruit better in 2014/2015? Why didn't they pursue more bodies along the DL before last off season? There is plenty of blame to go around for last year. I will say that overall "roster management" - including reading into or having the pulse on team chemistry and players not buying into your program is the responsibility of the head coach. The buck stops with him on attrition, discipline, attitude, etc. Beamer left him some really good players and leadership, which is why he won 19 games his first 2 years. What Beamer did not leave him was the proper depth on defense for when his last recruits would be upperclassman- see last year. There were simply not enough Beamer guys left on defense to fill gaps with experience, for various reasons. You could argue Fuente should have seen the roster numbers coming and added some more juco's, etc. but hey time to more forward
I imagine more bodies can be a double edged sword. How far down your recruit board do you go before the scholarship has more value at another position and you focus more on juco or next year?
Unless there are specifics you can elaborate on, I have an extremely hard time getting behind this argument. Bud has been coaching at Virginia Tech for 32 years, DC for 24 years, and many supporters wanted him to be the next head coach. How much support is he supposed to need? I can't imagine Bud wants his hand held and from all accounts Fuente regards Bud as the best in the business and preferred to take a, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach to the defense. Bud already knew the players on the team, was familiar with the recruiting areas, and should have established relationships with recruits and their coaches/families. If anything, I think Bud should have been able to help Fuente in the transition far more than the other way around.
Bud is definitely not exempt from blame. But fuente's job is to put together a staff capable of doing the job at a high level. Nix was a disaster of a hire that turned two of our best defensive players into liabilities last year, and the only reason he is no longer on staff is because there was an opening at Ole Miss. Brian Mitchell is an ineffective recruiter and has a mixed track record as a developer of talent. He's a very sizable step down from his predecessor that left partly due to because of his poor relationship with Fuente.
Are you suggesting that Bud Foster had no say in hiring either Nix or Mitchell? Again you are shifting the blame away from Foster.
Much less say than Fuente did. TG was Bud's guy, J ham is Bud's guy. I'm also not guessing here.
Did Bud think that Torrian Gray was critical to the success of his defense? If so, did he emphasize the importance of keeping him on staff to Fuente? VT had an excellent defense and DBs prior to Torrian Gray joining the staff in 2006. The defense performed well in 2016 and 2017 with Mitchell on staff. Is Bud struggling to effectively communicate the principals of his defense to his assistants? Have reported personal and health issues affected Bud in this regard?
Without knowing a lot more details, I don't believe it's possible to fully assess the situation and definitively assign blame. Bud certainly didn't have to agree to stay on the staff and I find it impossible to believe that he would agree to that only to let Fuente walk all over him. Bud has plenty of support in Blacksburg to make waves if he felt he was being undermined.
Once Fuente decided to lower TG's pay, their relationship was toast. Did I also not say that the results of Mitchell's group has been mixed. 16 and 17 were good, 18 was awful. 50% of his job is also recruiting, which has been pretty subpar under his watch.
You're also assuming a lot here. Fuente pushing for or suggesting certain guys to be hired is far different than walking all over bud. At the end of the day Fuente is Bud's boss and their relationship is solid enough that Bud will take fuente's advice. For example, Bud wanted to hire Hamilton last year, but Fuente didn't think he was ready.
Honestly I don't think I assumed almost anything at all. My main point was that there are a bunch of unknowns that would have to be considered and understood in order to make a fair assessment of the situation.
Also I'm failing to see how Brian Mitchell would necessarily be "Fuente's guy" since they seemingly had no prior connection. I don't see any reason why Bud wouldn't have had a lot of input on that hire.
TG needed to go.. his recruiting was getting realllly questionable toward the end. Personally not sorry to see him go one bit.
To add to what you are saying, Nix came aboard because of the departure of Scott, who was definitely one of Fuente's guys. I'm not saying that Fuente should have known what Scott would get himself into, just saying that from the start it was clear that Bud wasn't just given 100% autonomy of the defense like some like to suggest. That was made clear when Fuente installed his own, hand-picked successor to Bud on the defensive staff.
Scott replaced Cornell Brown, whom had been relegated to outside linebackers coach in an scheme where we typically only utilized 1 OLB. Are you sure Fuente "installed his own, hand-picked successor"... or did he make a reasonable change and bring along someone he trusts to learn under the greatest DC in the sport? It's very easy to create or change a narrative by injecting your own opinions into the tone of a post.
The co-DC thing was reported as Bud's idea because he wanted to keep Scott on the team because Scott could have gotten a DC job.
Fuente is no marriage counselor.
I mainly blame Bud for last year's defensive debacle. The defense never improved. That's just impossible to believe from a Bud Foster defense.
His history earned him a mulligan, and he sure used the hell out of it.
This as well.
I also am a firm believer that those offensive stats that Hale threw out do not tell the entire story. We have been atrocious against P-5 teams for 3 quarters of the game. Wildly inconsistent offensive outings that pump up stats because of occasional big play ability do not suggest that the offense is in a much better place.
I am in a "wait and see" posture with Fuente. If I see the same wild inconsistency on offense (regardless of the stats) this season, I might be ready to move on. If I see no improvements on D, that will further confirm the sentiment above, and I might be ready to move on. If I see, and I expect to, a really disappointing recruiting year, I might be ready to move on.
If I see any combination of these things, I'll likely be over the Fuente era.
Let's say we fire Fuente after the season and the defense was slightly better but around 50th in S&P+ rankings. Do you want to hire Bud Foster as head coach? Do you want the next head coach to retain Bud Foster?
Wow, does Fuente get credit for the defense the year before that was a top 10 unit or just the disaster last year?
Fuente recruiting has and average of 4th in the ACC over the three years in a 14 team league . When the year started 2018 he had 1 class his first and his second one coming in true freshman now his 3rd is coming in . No draft picks this year lost very little last year and will lose very little this year . There was no way to hide the deficiencies acroos the board on defense we were playing with maybe 3 of our top 16 players from the year before and he had not had enough recruits in or at least with any experience to cover that up . He may or may not be a great coach but last year was different but he has turned the roster over and it is his baby now and he has 3 fairly good classes so we will see over next several years what he is all about . I am buying Fuente to be really good after seeing the 0-0 game at wake and the 6-3 bowl game against Rutgers enough was enough and I loved Beamer but the program was headed down at the end and Fuente did farly well with what was left but it is his team with the players he went after now
Agree, the problem with talking recruiting and our defensive issues. We had 2 seniors on defense last year, one healthy. That class had nothing to do with Fuente. We have Burke, Seisay, and House as seniors this year that had nothing to do with Fuente. We have Floyd and Quillen as seniors who were recruited by Beamer staff but signed with Fuente; Taylor, Hewitt, Griffith, Belmar, Rodgers, Deablo, and Ladler that are juniors that signed with Fuente but were recruited by Beamers staff.
Fuente has not been able to recurit any senior leadership to the team and in last season and the next he will have Ashby, Webb, Crawford, Rivers, and Watts as juniors this coming seasons that were recruited under him.
He hired one of the best JUCO recruiters and filled some holes at DE and DB.
Lol so we moved past "Fuente needs his guys" to "Fuente needs his guys to be seniors"?
That wasnt my point. If you are blaming Fuente for bad recruiting on the defense then you are blaming the wrong person because he wasnt here. We have a lack of seniors last season and now this season. neither class were Fuente's. If any one expects a defensive of freshman and sophomores is going to be good then you're expectations will never be met. Fuente has proven he didnt need his guys to win, but he had strong junior and senior classes his first two years.
Fuente didn't "need his guys to be seniors" to have pretty good seasons in year 1 or 2. However, there is a certain threshold of experience/talent that needs to be available for Fuente (and every other coach) to have success. If you have extremely talented players, you might be able to get away with less experience. If you have slightly less talented players, they are very likely to need more experience. If VT had classes loaded with 5*, maybe Fuente wouldn't need more experience players. Unfortunately that level of recruiting has never been achieved at VT and a lack of experienced talent created the results we saw last year. Other than that, I don't particularly think it matters whose "guys" they are, as long as they aren't toxic.
Another way to look at it: we played to a 6-6 record (before the bowl) with essentially a JV team last year! (Playing against the other school's Varsity squads)
Doesn't sound like "bad" coaching to me.
Fuente recruited a ton of DEs in his first two classes to address that problem and just bought 5 DTs with 2 of them being Jucos and 2 or 3 more quality walkons . Look at his linebackers he has bought in Dax ,Rivers ,Artis ,Tisdale and others would be hard pressed to find higher rated LBs bunched like that ever bought in . He also gave Farley to Bud and Hunter may have been the top rated recruit plus Juco Webb . Looks like to me he has tried to give bud the talent to get the job done but the problem was there was a hole and a lot of these guys were forced to play a year or two early especially defense last year .
Feel like this kind of proves Hale's point. There was an immediate uptick when Fuente got here because he had the players/talent and hes a good coach. With the last few years of Beamer's recruiting classes being light on talent and upperclassmen graduating the product on the field dwindled as Fuente has made his best efforts to plug holes and restock.
There's only 1 position that I'm really worried about this year. I think team wise we have the talent to win the coastal, but we need a QB that can take us there. I really hope Hooker continues to improve because right now idk who can get the job done
Theres like a 1% chance it's anyone other than Ryan Willis this year
Willis is and was ahead of everyone and if you listened to the Broadcast of the spring game Laser and Burnop said as much. Basically saying there was a competition but not really because Willis had separated himself from the rest
I think Willis can be really good this year we shall see .
I mean I hope you're right and we saw some flashes, but I'm skeptical to say the least. I think he has the ability to be a Ryan Finley type player but it will take a gigantic improvement from what we saw last year, specifically in being able to see the whole field and not just the primary target.
We need a defense that can slow someone down to win the coastal. If the defense can get stops, the offense will be in better positions. If Willis improved at all from last year, the offense will be more than capable to get us the coastal.
My problem with Hale's position is that it extends the premise that Fuente is a capable offensive mind to argue confidence for his capability as a head coach. Basically he dug up a bunch of interesting stats about the Hokies' offensive production (which also overlook any role Cornelsen has), and ran from there. Most egregiously it overlooks recruiting, regardless of whether or not that's a pro or con throughout his tenure. It's a sound argument that the offense has improved since the end of the Beamer era, but not year-over-year under Fuente.
Also:
Not exactly, Fuente was hired to win football games and ACC Championships. Operationally, that's the execution plan.
The article disingenuously moves the goal post, as you say, from winning championships (improving upon what Beamer accomplished) to merely "injecting life into a listless offense."
What are we, Wake Florist?
As for recruiting, you're also spot on. It's been downright MAC-tastic on the defensive side of the ball. That's primarily Bud's fault, but it's ultimately Fuente's responsibility. And it doesn't seem like it will improve any this year.
David Hale's schtick has become all about moving the goal posts. His twitter presence has become a propaganda account for the ACC. He does a great job, but that's exactly what it is, a job to make the ACC look better and more interesting than it actually is.
Which I generally support. The ACC has seemingly been behind on the marketing and strat comm. front for years, especially with respect to football.
But using ACC marketing to gloss over Fuente's resume as VTHC thus far is inappropriate.
Feel like I am beating a dead horse here:
Against Power 5 Opponents the last 2 years, we have score more than 24 points 5 times (WVU, UNC in 2017, Duke, GT, UVA in 2018)
We're not putting points on the board where it counts.
Yep, our dismal offensive outputs over the last two years against the P5 are undeniable.
This. I don't think anyone expected the defense to be as bad as it was last year, but we knew it was going to take a step back from 2017 in any case. We were gonna need the O to carry the team in at least a few games and it just didn't happen enough, which was the source of my and I'm sure several others' frustrations last fall.
Curious, why did you leave off 2016, where we put up 24 points in 12 of 14 games? Why are we leaving off FSU last year, or Duke 2017, is it the more than clause?
He said "more than 24" points so that's why FSU and Duke are left off. Also, does that really make a difference, is scoring 24 points something to brag about now?
2016 isn't included because as of right now it's the exception, and that was all Beamer players except for Jerod Evans (who was very important to the team, so kudos to Fuente on that one). We have two consecutive years of horrible offensive output against the P5 on the scoreboard, where it matters most. It's worth bringing up.
We should have had a heck of a lot more against FSU too. That was the one game last year where the defense held their own and the offense failed to score when starting inside the 50 like 3 times in a row or something like that.
I'll just echo your feedback as my comments as well.
I get the increase in 'production' but when those things do not translate to points on the board, then production does not matter. Being able to put up points wins games, not production.
Edit: Against all Power 5 Opponents in the last two years, we average just 24 points per game, and we only had two instances where we scored more than 31 points (UNC in 2017 - 59, and UVA in 2018- 34)
Okay, then let me try to compare apples to apples.
2015 to 2016. Your argument are the players are the same so production should mostly be the same since they are "all Beamer players."
2015 we had 5/10 games score more than 24 points. 2016 we had 8/12 games score more than 24 points. All 8 scores more than 31 points, which was pointed out above for god knows what significance.
What does this say? Absolutely nothing. Just like the last two years. If anything, I am compelled to make the argument that Fuente does drastically better with a veteran QB like Paxton Lynch, Jerod Evans, and hopefully Ryan Willis next year. My critique of the earlier post was that it seemed super constrictive to illustrate a point, not analyze data. We took the two weakest years, made a cut where several significant games would be cut, and was designed to make it seem like Fuente is floundering. I don't buy into that.
Why do we put the onus of the last two years on Fuente and his "guys" when he didn't have a fresh recruit in his junior year outside of transfers? Why won't we give him the credit for his first year where he was the one scheming it and we smashed offensive records? It just isn't good data and I hate when people dress it up to look like that.
Because our offense in 16 was because of 1 phenomenal player
Oh right, Jerod. Got it. Or did you mean Isaiah Ford? Or Cam Phillips? Or Bucky Hodges? Sam Rogers? Travon McMillian? Joey Slye?
Obviously Fuente/Cornelsen had no idea how to effectively utilize those guys either because they've all gone on to tear it up in the NFL.
I can no longer discern what is /s on this thread and what isn't.
The issue is that randomness and luck play a huge factor in football, and, considering the small sample size, it's REALLY hard to separate out over the course of a season. The number David shows in his post are designed to specifically cut through the noise and non-random factors that are opponent-adjusted.
Just looking at how many points we score in a game and saying "that doesn't cut it" is ignoring the full story. It's entirely possible to have a fantastic offense that gets screwed by field position or crap luck and it only puts up 20 points a game.
But wouldn't a coach figure out how to overcome this? They've got guys that they've hired specifically to analyze things like this, and provide the data to the coach. I know there are several of us on here that could see it with our own eyes - we straight faltered once we got close to the endzone. Getting the guys prepared and in the best position to execute is on the coaches, executing itself falls on the players.
I don't really care for his last point:
"Beamer took seven years to get things rolling"
Yeah, and some people forget that around year 4 Beamer was on the hot seat and close to being fired. And that was in an era where there was alot more tolerance for program building.
Fuente also took over a national brand, a huge fanbase, 80%+ percentile facilities, one of the longest bowl streaks in the nation and a history of winning, no NCAA violations....
Acting like this was the same job when Beamer was hired and when Fuente took the keys is insane.
And Beamer was coaching a team in a non-P5 conference until 2004 with average facilities and minimal alumni support. Fuente has a few more advantages than Beamer had to go along with the higher expectations.
The Big East was a power conference in the mid-late 90s/early 2000s. The conference had a BCS Bowl auto-bid. VT and Miami both played for national championships and some combination of West Virginia, Pitt and Syracuse were always ranked. Most years in that time span saw 3 or 4 out of the 8 football schools ranked in the final AP poll.
In addition the Big East never sucked bad enough that they should have lost their BCS auto bid. The ACC can't say that. The ACC was a trash conference with the exception of FSU until they expanded.
Correct. Folks forget (quickly, it seems) that the P5 was once the "P6."
If you ask the AAC, it never stopped being the "P6" except in the actual bowl contracts (which is actually what matters).
I wouldn't be upset if they did become a 6th power conference.
But along with what you say, I don't write bowl contracts.
Can't say I'd be upset, but it would never happen.
This thread is cancer. God forbid someone give us a few stats that shows we might not be in a terrible situation with Coach Fu. We all know he needs to do better and he said as much too. This fan base is out of whack.
Just wait, we are still 3 months until fall camp starts. There isn't going to be anything new to change the narrative until then so this is going to be rehashed and argued over continually the entire summer. This is going to be a long summer.
Kirk Cousins is consistently tops in the NFL in passing yards, completions, TD's (and a few other things). How are those stats working out for him?
Stats are necessary when trying to reach a conclusion about something, but they rarely ever tell the entire story. I haven't seen a "cancerous" thread, only people coming to different conclusions about where we are.
I wish I was as good as him.
Well, that wasn't really my point...
This is a totally legitimate conversation. When you have the worst season the program has had since George Herbert Walker Bush was president, you are going to get some scrutiny from the fan base.
I'm pretty sure Justin Fuente wears big boy pants, and can handle some mild criticism.
One side of this conversation seems a little more aggressive. That's my only point.
I said pretty much the same exact thing in my comment.
I'm sorry, but calling this thread "cancer" is FUBARdBoster
Nobody is getting heated, nobody is getting bent out of shape, some people are a little grumpy about the future of the program, and given last season I think they have a right to be. We've had cancerous threads on this site before, and this ain't one of them.
That is a fair assessment... I shouldn't have pulled out the C word. Although a "grumpy" thread is not something I have ever said before.
Those stats don't really account for big plays which is why our offense didn't score a lot of points last season. It's tough to gain 4 yards on every play for entire 80-yard drive. That would be a 20-play drive. If our offense wants to actually take a step forward and look serviceable, they're going to have to hit those big plays that open a defense up. We haven't really had that since Jerod Evans could just close his eyes and throw it up to Bucky Hodges or Isaiah Ford, and we've never really had it with the run game aside from a couple Travon McMillian runs.
I was super down on Fuente after this season. But now that some time has passed and I have become less upset about it, my faith is restoring. I still believe he is a good coach. On the bright side, it's going to be pretty damn hard to have a worse season than the last.