4 turnovers on the QB is incredibly hard to over come. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the biggest issues he had at KU?
How much more will Fuente tolerate before he gives him the Hook with Hooker?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
My personal expectations are that we see Hooker in the mix in the first half on Saturday regardless of how Willis is playing. Same for Furman. I hope he sees at least 40% of the snaps in both those games.
I'm OK with that, and it's a better solution than vindictively yanking Willis at the end of yesterday's game and throwing Hooker in without a lot of forethought.
If that's going to happen, they'll be prepping that way.
It's clearly long enough for a coach who has pulled RB's for fumbling in the 1st quarter and held them out the rest of the game to leave Willis in after two RZ interceptions, a fumble inside our 20, and a pick thrown directly to a DT on a screen pass.
This is the part I can't understand. First of all, Fuente has expressed his dislike with Willis' tendency to play hero ball all the time. It didn't really cost us last year because everyone else was so bad that it kind of got overshadowed, but everyone did enough yesterday to where we win if Willis isn't handing out turnovers like they're candy at a parade.
Well he clearly thought that Willis had earned the starting spot. We were still in the game and had a chance to score and tie it up. If you pull Willis you blow his confidence. They've put a lot of work in this offseason and had a plan for Willis to be the guy. It is hard to make that shift so immediately and in the middle of a game. For those reasons, I can understand why Fuente kept him in the game.
That being said, Fuente has to realize that maybe his evaluation of Willis is wrong and that maybe he is not the guy. I'm hoping Fuente tells Willis that the QB1 competition is back open and that both he and Hooker will play against ODU.
If Willis has 1 TO against ODU, Hooker should play the rest of the game in my opinion. If Hooker performs well and protects the ball, then he should be the guy moving forward. If Hooker starts turning the ball over, then CornFu has a big big problem.
I love the fight and spirit from Willis. I was expecting to see a clean game from him and some serious improvement. Very discouraging. Fuente will give him a chance against ODU, but I expect the leash to be very very short. We shall see.
Yeah, I don't think Willis should have been benched yesterday unless he really started tanking. He did have some nice throws and threw for over 300 yards (albeit on 40 some throws) and four touchdowns. I'm just not sure what Fuente saw in the offseason that gave him confidence in Willis to name him QB1. His past concerns with Willis saying "fuck it" and throwing the ball anywhere manifested itself yesterday as if it didn't get better at all during the offseason.
ODU and Furman will be good games to get Hooker some game experience if Willis ever does have to get benched. I hope we see a lot of him.
Maybe Willis is clearly the better QB in practice but gets a little too up in the game and is prone to the interceptions in games only.
Hits, game environment, pressure of winning and losing, etc. all result in physiological change. For some people it makes them better, for others it makes them worse.
Agree. The most concerning part is not that Willis threw 3 INTs and fumbled once. It is most concerning that he was evaluated as QB1 and then made all those mistakes. This result is really starting to shift the issue onto CornFu. Either play calling or coaching is off.
Those are my reactions, but I am trying not to draw too many conclusions from a single game. I am willing to see what happens over the next couple games, but it is time to see results and see improvement. This offense has the talent to be really good. But really good offenses don't turn the ball over at that rate.
I may be reading into what you're saying a bit too much (or maybe I'm not reading into it enough and am taking your comment out of the context of this conversation a little too much), but throwing picks and fumbling aren't a result of playcalling. Coaching, maybe. But even that is more of an extension of execution than it is of coaching.
That being said, coaching comes into question if we've got Willis turning it over like this all season and they do nothing to address it. I get the feeling that's what you're getting at, but it was difficult to tell, so my apologies if I've misrepresented you there.
You hear it often - you want your quarterback to have a short memory. Maybe that's what they were hoping to see from Willis this weekend. Maybe Hooker has shown enough reason for concern in practice that they don't want to risk him in the game - at least not yet. It's clear that those turnovers really were the difference in the game. By my count, BC scored 14 points off of turnovers. That can't continue.
14 directly, quickly off of turnovers. I'd argue more points could be accounted for from those turnovers.
Defense is on the field longer and with a young, small DL, that is not a good thing.
We sustain drives longer, change field position either by moving it and punting, or scoring and kicking off, maybe they don't score on one of their other drives...or, our D is better rested and make a big play to get a turnover.
Of course, maybe that doesn't happen, but I feel that I can say definitively, a tired defense is not as good as one with energy.
There's also the mental defeat aspect of our defense actually getting a stop and then having to march right back on the field because we gave the ball away...not conducive to sustaining those 3rd quarter numbers over the long haul.
Agreed. I don't mean to diminish that at all.
But the 14 points off of turnovers are measurable so I just used the stat.
I don't think you do that. I think you want to keep Willis's confidence up as much as possible, but still get QB2 a half a game in
Also had a sure fire pick 6 batted down at the line
Yup I saw that too
BC LB grabbing his helmet like 'are you kidding'... That was going in for 6
C'mon guys.... you know the difference between benching a QB mid game and pulling a running back especially when there is no single star ball carrier. Having said that, I hope HH and/or QP get playing time the next several weeks.
I am really curious to know if our interception in the endzone would have been a touchback, if Fuente would have put Hooker in on the 20 (Or is the touchback rule 25 yrd line, honestly can't remember).
I'm still trying to figure out why it wasn't a touchback and why it was not reviewed!
He fell back into the endzone. Instead it was spotted on the 2, 3 and out, punt, short field for BC, leads to their only TD of the 2nd half. HAd it been a touchback, even if we go 3 and out, BC would've had a much longer field.
That was big! And I was confused why it was spotted on the 2.
Yeah that was one of those subtle game changing calls that the "BC favoring" announcers didnt even mention. He was clearly in the end when we finished gaining possession and that 18 yard difference could have made a huge difference in field position or even the play calls instead of hiking in your own endzone.
Now we got a fortunate call on the 4th down run by Willis so I'm not railing the refs but that was a huge missed call by them.
I seem to remember his feet landing on the 2 with possession, before falling back in the EZ.
If a receiver puts his feet down on the 2 and falls into the end zone then it is a TD, but a guess forward/backward progress for a defender? Not sure I like that rule. A serious disadvantage for the defense In that situation. They should be rewarded for that type of play.
That rule is fine. Spot of the ball would be forward progress of the player with control of the football.
Now afterwards when we had the ball on offense and if willis ran forward and "fell backwards" 2 yards, you'd be wishing for forward progress rather than giving up a safety.
The rule isn't perfect, but it works.
I had thought that if the defenders original momentum carried them into the endzone, but they controlled the ball in the field of play, it was a touchback (i.e. they did not have control of the ball and the their person until they were in the endzone).
Evidently I was wrong, but it would be a fair way to rule (I am sure the refs could err on the behalf of the intercepting player).
Thing is, team has potential to be REALLY good with most everyone back, like 20 of 22 starters, with one being the most important position on the field- QB. It makes sense to groom next years QB this year. Regardless of Willis' performance, next years QB needs to play a lot this year. So yeah, super short leash
Great point.
Great point .
Agreed, I don't see how Hooker or QP can ever become game ready without playing a game. Like a full game. They are plenty old enough now to handle that.
JJ was game ready against WVU without playing a full game. Jerod had literally never played in a DI football game before coming to VT.
I get what you're saying; HH/QP can't learn from their mistakes if they don't make them. But before they make mistakes in a game, they have to prove that they can learn from mistakes they make in practice. If they can't prove that, there's no reason they should be put in a game for significant amount of time (unless the win is secured early).
Evans had plenty of experience as a team leader and QB though. So I don't agree with that. Sure he didn't play D1, but he had the experience, he just had a different type of adjustment to make.
And yeah, JJ was thrown in and he had a good first season. The hope was that either Hooker or QP would end up being better players. Maybe one of them ends up playing well for a season or two, but I have a feeling both are just going to end up hanging around their four years and not really ever being the player we hoped they could be.
I just don't think that getting game experience now will drastically change their careers (for better for worse). I think Tyrod would have had just as good a career if he redshirted in 2007. I don't think Vick would've been any better if he didn't redshirt in 1998.
I have to think that Fuente understands QB maturity fairly well. He's spent his entire career focused on mostly that.
Doesn't make him perfect, but I have to trust his judgment.
*I think Tyrod would have had just as good a career if he redshirted in 2007.*
What makes you think that?
Because I think that by 2010 he got every piece of knowledge out of that staff that he could have. What would you have liked to see out of Tyrod in 2010 (that was inside the scope of that offensive system) that you didn't see?
I'm not sure how those two questions are related. Tyrod *did* end up playing early so we don't know where his play level would be if he sat out a few years.
But you are probably right, that one year probably would not have mattered since he would have been given the reins immediately anyways. Unfortunately that doesnt apply to our current backups.
Backing up bar1990's point here and with 20/20 hindsight: even in the NFL he didn't show anything we didn't see by his senior year. Had he redshirted, his senior year most likely is the same as it turned out to be
Well, I guess we will see if Willis can learn from mistakes he made in the BC game.
Just because we have starters back doesn't mean they will be good. Just because a player is a true freshman doesn't mean they will be bad
This is why I am so frustrated with the QB spot and the evaluation of who should be playing there. This makes sense, playing Willis after a 4 TO game does not make sense. And if the comeback is "well, they're (other QB's) not ready yet" - who does that fall back on? The coaches chose to pursue them as recruits, why should there be a waiting game on when they're ready to play because the coaches cannot get them the experience they need?
UNC beat USCe with a true freshman QB this weekend. Sometimes you have to roll the dice with youth and see where they take you. As a big Willis fan, I am ready to see what HH brings to the table for an entire half of football. Win or lose, the young man deserves a shot. Willis really broke my football heart with his decision making on Saturday. Still love his competitive fire, just cannot understand the bonehead mistakes. Hope both RW and HH show out the next three weeks against must win opponents. If VT is not 3-1 heading to Miami, then I will join the coaching change train.
Both Saban and Swinney made QB decisions with a veteran QB vs. a rising star. Now I am not saying this is an apples to apples comparison, but being able to evaluate the talent and the potential is a job of the coaching staff. I've yet to see our staff go with any option outside of 'their comfort zone,' which is what they know based on previous game experience.
Saban didn't give Tua meaningful minutes over Hurts until the 2nd half of the 15th game of the season. Dabo didn't start Lawrence over Bryant until game 5.
Also aren't Tayvion Robinson and Keyshawn King prime examples of players getting significant snaps outside of what the coaches know based on previous game experience?
Tua came in that game, but he officially won the starting role the following year. Both evaluations by Saban and Swinney came off of game experience. Our coaches limit the packages for our backups to run, which in turn keeps them as backups. The former did not limit packages
Yep, completely agree about the the observation of Tayvion and King, but why would the QB spot be so much different? Willis is 4-7 as a starter, and in the last 4 years, we have put up more than 30 points against Power 5 competition just 4 times. We need the offense to step up and put up some points to take pressure off our defense - some what of a Big12 model. So why wouldn't we try to light a fire under the offense by just seeing if there is potential in true game situations for HH? Until he gets to run the full offense, the coaches will never know - and that falls back on the coaches and their ability to evaluate talent.
Well if he has another performance like that, that's certainly it. Brenden Hill tweeted about how you don't want to switch quarterbacks early in the season because it already creates controversy early in the season, and I think he's right, but losing because you had 5 turnovers including 2 in the end zone is unacceptable for a senior. If Fuente truly values not turning the ball over like he says he does, it won't be long. I just think Willis can't help himself from trying to play hero ball at least two plays every game.
I understand where he's coming from, but my guess is that controversy will be there either way. There's plenty of controversy around playing a struggling qb. Lest we forget, it got pretty bleak during the Glennon/Tyrod transition.
That's a good point. Glennon was benched after game 2 in 2007 and after game 1 in 2008, and we won the ACC both of those seasons. Glennon was benched more or less because a pocket passer simply could not succeed behind that offensive line. We needed someone who could escape pressure since it was so constant. We knew Tyrod could provide that. The need now is for a quarterback who is going to play within the system and not turn the ball over. We're not sure whether or not Hooker can provide that.
I think it's time we at least give him a try .
I don't think that's an apples-to-apples comparison, for a variety of reasons:
TL;DR - If you want Hooker to start over RW, it's because you think Hooker will turn the ball over less. It's not because he brings some significantly new dimension to the offense (like Tyrod did).
I'm old enough to remember when the fan base started complaining about all those trips to the Orange Bowl, and the ACC Title being our ceiling.
Damn, I miss those days and I miss those teams we had my undergrad years
Here's the thing about Willis and Hooker...Willis is not good at Running the read option so we need to take those plays out of the playbook. I think that you should run the offense that best fits your personnel, not try to fit the personnel into the offense that you know they are not good at running. If you bring Hendon or QP in, then you can do more of the read option, but Willis seems like he doesn't have the feel for it. we've seen this for two years now. the problem with Josh Jackson was he knew how to run it but he wasn't fast enough to be a threat...ryan willis is fast enough to be a threat, but he doesn't know how to run it...if Willis is a gun slinger then set him up with 5 wide and lets throw it all over the field and then pass to set up the run...use more pistol concepts or put willis under center and hand the ball to RB
Yeah but when they did line up with 5 WRs RW would stare down his receiver and throw an INT into double coverage
How to not telegraph as a QB:
The difference between a 5 star recruit and a 3 star recruit
If you're a starting QB at a P5 school, you should be able to go through a progression.
Obviously not. Who was the last qb that VT had that really went through 2-3 reads per attempt?
Our most successful qbs have been single read, if it's not there, tuck the ball and take off
I clearly remember watching Jackson go through multiple reads in many games two years ago.
Careful now I got attacked a couple months ago for suggesting that Jackson might be the better QB
Our offense is primarily one read for the Qb in the passing game. Lefty's offense had multiple reads. The spread offense are really successful because of the pure simplicity of them including the reads.
Cool post some highlights for us
Beamer built VT on Defense, Special Teams, and Ball Control so our historical offensive production isn't where we should be looking.
Whit told Bud he wouldn't get the job because he wanted an Offensive minded HC. If you had to make a list of Fuente's qualities as a coach prior to him coming to Blacksburg, you'd probably note his successful offenses, and his ability to coach QBs.
I can't say I watch all of CFB with enough detail that I can categorically state this but if you're a QB who's success is predicated on passing (which Willis' is) you need to be able to go through more than one read. Willis can't do that on a consistent basis right now, and that's a problem.
I find it hard to believe that *only* 5 star QBs are able to read through progressions.
The only correct answer here is Michael Brewer.
I wonder if the coaches allow him to go through a progression or are they perdetermining who to throw the ball too. This check with me offense leads me to believe they are telling him where to go with the ball. I may be wrong but it appears that the coaches are telling him who to give the ball to both in our run and pass games. If not he really cannot run a read option offense.....too many times he gave the ball to the back who got hammered when he had a wide open field to run!
I was told Fuente was a QB whisperer and this staff's whole plan was to take 3 stars and coach them up.
I'm getting really tired of hearing this about Fuente being a qb whisperer. It is a fanmade title and people want to hold it against him in some way.
Then let's hold it against the fans who proclaimed it
https://www.pilotonline.com/sports/college/virginia-tech/article_9461f21...
"Fuente believes he has an eye for talent at quarterback.
"'I do feel like I have an understanding of what it takes,' said Fuente, who also coached Paxton Lynch. He passed for 8,863 yards, 59 touchdowns and 23 interceptions at Memphis and is projected as a potential first-round NFL pick this spring.'"
https://www.espn.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/89273/virginia-tech-has-its-qb-w...
"And the Hokies are happy to have Fuente. At a school searching for its next great quarterback, Fuente is the ideal coach to develop one."
Where in either of those articles did anyone call Fuente a "quarterback whisperer"?
And do you just enjoy bashing Fuente in every post?
You've made your point. You don't like him. We get it.
But it hasn't changed my mind about seeing the experiment through to the end.
You didn't read the subject line "Virginia Tech has its quarterback whisperer" on the second post?
You've made it clear you will absolve Fuente for everything. We get it. I don't enjoy bashing Fuente. I liked it when he did well with Beamer's talent. I'd like it if they would stop losing.
He did pretty well with Jackson dude. The turnover problems have been Willis specific and that's not something you can blame on Fuente at all, they're split second decisions by the guy actually on the field
a) Fuente is the one that put Willis on the field, and the story here after Jackson transferred was that Willis was better.
b) If Fuente doesn't get the blame for the turnovers, then he also doesn't get credit for the good plays.
Then when Fuente gets a win, will you be here defending him?
Willis threw 1 more interception versus P5 last year than JJ did versus P5 in 2017 and RW had 89 more attempts. JJ fans have created a false narrative that he never turned the ball over and that RW is a turnover machine. This was RW's first bad turnover game. It was a bad game that could have been worse but let's stop making him out to be Nate Peterman.
Let me tell you about a guy named Frank Beamer. You may have heard of him? Some of the critics here would have sent him out of town on a rail before he succeeded.
This is where I'm coming from. I never thought Fuente's job would be an easy one. He had to turn a sputtering program into a winning one. Anybody who thought that was happening in a year or two are disillusioned, but were going to be no matter what.
I don't "absolve him from everything", but I'm realistic in how long it takes to turn a football team around.
So no, I don't have much tolerance for those who just come here to spew venom.
I've been here for about 4 years longer than you, so accusing me of being here just to "spew venom" is way off and a bit insulting. I'm sorry I refuse to be deliriously happy about the state of things in spite of all logic and reason. I can show you venom if you like, but I try to keep it facts-only here.
Fuente's job was to turn around a program. He cranked out 19 wins in two years because Beamer left him a bunch of draft picks who have left the program. This is year 4 and things are going backwards. It doesn't take a decade to turn a program around like it did in the 80s before the explosion of TV.
Which program was in worse shape in 2016, UVA or VT? Which one is in better shape now? UCF was 0-12 in 2015. Two years later they went unbeaten. It's not unrealistic or spoiled to think VT should be farther along than "needs to hastily schedule a game the last week of the season to be bowl eligible after needing a miracle to beat UVA".
Being on TKP four years longer than me doesn't mean you aren't overly negative. Are you saying you weren't critical of Beamer?
Nobody here is deliriously happy this week, but some ARE delirious about what our options are, about where the program was when Beamer left, and about how long a coaching transition takes. In spite of the staff's best efforts, our recruiting was hurt the year Beamer left.
Fuente's job is STILL to turn the program around. It's still a work in progress. I don't know, but I see that he has a young team. Yes, it's unfortunate, but it's also the reality. To compare VT to some other team that had a better transition is a fool's errand. And to say UVa has improved more is also irrelevant for multiple reasons. First, they had nowhere to go but up. Second, they managed to recruit an experienced quarterback who has really paid off and who didn't leave or get injured (you can say that's on the coach, I suppose.). They're doing some things right, and it's paying off. I fully believe that our payoff will be longer in the making, but if we get there, it will be a bigger one. Are our backup quarterbacks good? That's potentially the key to the whole thing.
I remember Beamer's last couple of years, but I don't remember those years being all that great. I also remember Fuente having some decent recruiting classes (with some key misses, for sure), and those are the young players that I'm expecting some improvement from.
So are you saying that Fuente got better production from Beamer's recruits than Beamer got? If that's the case, does it mean Fuente can coach? And if Fuente can coach, and he's got decent recruits himself, can't we assume he can turn that into on-field production after they've gained some experience?
All I'm saying is that it is what it is. So we can whine about it nonstop for the next two years that I believe Fuente has to prove himself, or we can try to be supportive. Certainly, we can do a "facts based analysis", but constantly complaining about the coach is hardly objective.
I predict a mixed season this year. And I expect Fuente will have some success with this team. I gotta say, I hope I'm right about the success part.
VT football was a fucking dumpster fire coming off probation where a good season saw us breaking .500 and getting more than 25k people in the stadium on a consistent basis when Frank Beamer was hired. Now, its a multimillion dollar business that is relied upon to primarily fund the entire athletic department as well as spearhead any fundraising platforms we wish to pursue. We had the luxury of being patient with Beamer because literally nobody gave a shit about us in 1990. If VT football had failed back then, it literally wouldn't have moved the needle.
But now? Completely different story. If VT football collapses, it will have far ranging and rippling consequences to not just the athletic department but an entire tourism/culture in the Roanoke Valley that has been built up around having an influx of 60k people doubling the size of Blacksburg for 7 or 8 weekends in the fall. Lots of people stand to lose lots of money if VT football goes in the tank, and certainly a hell of a lot more than there were 30 years ago. But I'm sure you already know this, you just don't care, because its easier to be a condescending blowhard toward anyone who isn't a rah rah cheerleader over the program right now than to actually think for yourself and realize that times have changed and what we're experiencing now isn't acceptable football for a program with the prestige ours has.
Now, now. We need at least 3 more seasons of 'data points' before we're allowed say anything about this staff which could be remotely construed for criticism.
(good post, btw)
BuT wHaT aBoUt DaBo'S fIrSt FeW yEaRs!?
I'm just saying that Fuente is going to be here at least until the end of the year, and likely through next year, so constantly bashing him as if he's the antichrist isn't going to help the mood of TKP. Negativity is certainly popular this week, but I don't see the point.
I hope he does better than you guys are predicting.
Call me crazy, I guess.
Literally nobody is saying this
What is it with you and your need to overreact to any criticism of this program?
I don't know. We have one bad game, and you're talking about the permanent failure of VT football.
I'm saying that nonstop bashing of our coach isn't productive, and I get negative votes for voicing that opinion.
There is a difference between criticism and negativity. I don't so much mind criticism, but I have little use for negativity.
Yeah, lets just ignore last year, amirite?
We don't have to ignore it, but I definitely don't want to talk about it every week this year.
Let's hope we have some better games ahead of us, so we have something better to discuss.
If you don't like critical comments, especially after losses in the season opener after our worst W-L record in 25 years, maybe an internet message board isn't the right safe space for you.
Then don't engage. You respond to so many comments - no one is forcing you to be the moral police. Fans are going to be frustrated given the current state of the program.
The point was that I'm drawing a distinction between this year and last. Talking about the current state of the program is fine. We have one game under our belts this year. One in which we had a turnover margin of -4 against a decent team, and we lost by 7 points.
If you're claiming VT football is fatally damaged based on that, I'm going to have to say that at a minimum, you have too little data to make that claim.
If you want to declare Fuente and this year are done, fine. You may be right. For me, it's too soon to make that call.
Yeah, gonna have to agree with Alum and OutofTowner...
Nobody is apocalyptic over this one game. We're all measurably upset that this game felt exactly the same as last year. Hence, we bring up last year.
I don't understand what's wrong with that?
And also, all of the people bringing up displeasure over last weekend's performance want the best out of the program. It feels like you are arguing that because some people aren't all sunshine, we are actively rooting against the program. Everyone here loves VT football.
Some of us want to talk critically and right now, that unfortunately is not the most positive thing.
I don't have a problem with criticism, but some people appear to be ready to throw in the towel. I'm not.
That seems to me to be the fundamental difference.
I just want to see this thread shrink down to single character columns. Let's Go................................................................Hokies!
Let's keep it going then. I'm sure we can take it there.
It won't be my first time.
It doesn't look like you're going to make it all the way to single characters.
Just say some-thing nice about Fuente.
BC was painful to watch on several levels, but I'm reserving judgement until the end of the season. Fuente is our coach and he has my support until he is no longer our coach. Whether that is 2020 or 2030.
I agree.
That's a wrap.
Just in case you blacked out last season, we're now 2-6 in our last 8 ACC games, and we play in the weakest division in P5. In those losses, many of the same issues - poor OL play, zero running game, zero pass rush, inconsistent QB play, lackluster offensive output, ST gaffs, etc. have all been consistent. To say 'we had one bad game' and act like frustrated fans are out of their mind for no reason is disingenuous at this point.
Oddly, I can just repeat the answer I gave your other comment.
The point was that I'm drawing a distinction between this year and last. In our one game this year, we had a turnover margin of -4 against a decent team, and we lost by 7 points.
If you're claiming VT football is fatally damaged based on that, I'm going to have to say that at a minimum, you have too little data to make that claim.
If you want to declare Fuente and this year are done, fine. You may be right. For me, it's too soon to make that call.
To me this just reads like we're relying on finding moral victories against very mediocre opponents (which should be telling of how far we've already fallen), and given where we've been the last 1.5 years and the continued on and off-field issues that plague us, and the fact that we've got one of the worst recruiting classes in the country, I'm not sure how you can dial this up as a one-off.
I'm not saying that at all, and I don't think last week was a moral victory.
But last week IS a one-off until we see how the rest of the season goes.
If the whole season goes like last week did, I'll be joining you on the dark side. But I won't be joining you this week.
Why do you always have to be the moral police or be right about everything?
We are 2-6 in the last 8 games. Not great. Everyone is complaining because the same problems we keep seeing don't disappear, game after game. No one is jumping ship, I've seen very few people even come close to alluding to that, just that everyone is frustrated with the program.
That's the point you seem to be missing and going "no no no I just don't want any criticism at all." Geesh man as some people said above if you don't like it don't come on an Internet forum OR just ignore people.
You are aware of Big Ten West aren't you?
You don't understand how dire the straits are that we're navigating. We rose to prominence at the perfect time that allowed that to happen. Luckily we have the ACC to anchor us so our floor is about where Wake Forest is sitting, but we won't have the same opportunity to bust back onto the scene that blue blood teams have. That literally what a blue blood is, a team that can survive not having recent results but still has enough built up prestige and fan base to recover from mediocrity. Why are you not afraid of us becoming irrelevant?
I guess I do see it differently.
I think Fuente is a decent coach, and we've got a lot of talent on the team. We do need to win some recruiting battles, and we need Willis to make better decisions. One or two different decisions by Willis in Saturday's game, and we're having a different conversation right now.
I think this season and the next makes or breaks Fuente. I don't think it makes or breaks the VT football program. What Beamer built took decades. The people who were here for that don't forget it in a season or two, or even five. Even ten. So no, I'm not worried about whether the program can handle another season of Fuente, particularly as we don't really know what we have yet for this season.
Serious question: What has told you in the last few years that Fuente is a decent coach?
Dude gets out coached *constantly*. And I don't want to hear "Well actually Corny gets out coached not FU". Corny is FU's guy. It all falls on FU.
Please provide an example where he was clearly out-coached.
I'm going to guess that more often than not, we didn't have the personnel to mount a successful defense, or we had execution errors.
I can say the same to you. Name one time the "offensive guru" has managed to change up a scheme to confuse a defense. You can't because it's never happened, because the guy is completely out of his depth against mediocre P5 teams and coaches, especially since "his guys" have taken over.
What you're saying is basically nothing has ever been his fault.
You said this:
I just asked for an example of what you meant.
Ask CPJ
I went to start replying and saw you wrote everything I was thinking so thank you for saving me the effort.
I'd also say that rebuilds took a whole lot longer in the 80s because there was less television, way less money and the recruiting network was nowhere near as developed as it is now. Now unless you're on probation you should be able to get a program to respectability within 4 seasons.
It's true Beamer had sanctions to overcome but this statement is a largely inaccurate appeal to emotion. We went 9-2-1 in the season before Beamer was hired, won the Peach Bowl, and finished ranked Top 20. Attendance figures reported show that home games drew 40-50k fans as well. VT hadn't had a losing season since 1979, Dooley had a .632 winning percentage during his tenure, and we even had a player some people may have heard of named Bruce Smith drafted #1 overall in 1985.
You call out Vtkey for over reacting but comments like this don't do much to tamp down exaggerated narratives.
I'm shocked that this kind of name calling is being considered acceptable but it's even more disappointing to see it be rewarded.
Leg, but to Rocco's point, Fuente isn't the quarterback coach. According to hokiesports.com, Cornelsen is the quarterbacks coach - meaning that the alleged 'whisperer' isn't the one who is whispering.
And I think this is the problem.
That's a decent point.
Fuente is the head coach. So it's his responsibility to have the right staff in place to carry out his vision. If they're not getting it done, then maybe he does need to step in personally and take charge.
Still too soon
Why not give Hooker a few series in a game and run plays that may feature his strengths because I don't see Fuente changing QBs this early on . Willis may have the better arm but he has poor decision making and from what I saw would be locked on his first option . Fuente did say Hooker made a ton of improvement over the summer so why not .
I think we will see it.
I don't think Hooker is any better than Willis. If Hooker was, he'd be playing (and don't give me the 'Willis was better than JJ and Fuente started JJ excuse - JJ started b/c Fuente thought he was better able to take care of the ball). Willis also made a ton of passes that I don't think Hooker can make.
I think Brenden Hill had a good take on what to do moving forward:
That is a good take by Brendan, and he has some self proclaimed hot takes lol.
I think you may be right that Hooker isnt better than Willis but at this point I would rather have a QB as a true RPO threat with his legs than watching Willis make consistent wrong reads and get our RBs crushed.
So maybe Hooker does not throw as well as Willis, but can he take care of the ball better? And we know HH is certainly the better runner. His running ability would make the O less one dimensional.
I doubt it. Fuente has said over and over again that he values ball security and predictable outcomes. If he felt that Hooker was more likely to deliver on the predicted outcome, then Hooker would have won the job. It's the same reason JJ won the job last off season.
I'm not convinced of this. From the limited snaps of HH I've seen, he definitely has more straight-line speed than Willis, but Willis can be shifty, and can make people miss. I don't think I've seen HH make anyone miss (correct me if I'm wrong)?
Does HH run the option better? Maybe, but again, I don't know; I haven't seen Hooker play a ton of snaps, but I imagine that making the right read is classified as a 'predicted outcome,' and I bet that RW makes the correct read more frequently than anyone else on the roster.
But if Hooker can't pass as well, isn't the offense still one dimensional?
NO way you pull Willis at this point. One of those INTs was a freak thing, and one was clearly not his fault.
If Hooker was better, he would have started on Saturday. It's common sense. Fuente has watched them both for over a month now in camp. Obviously Willis was better all August long. One bad afternoon in September does not burn down the August evaluation.
Which one a freak thing and which one wasn't his fault?
Even when Tyrod took over for Glennon he had one game against Duke where he had four turnovers in the first half that were far worse than the turnovers Willis had yesterday. Willis did not have his best game. But when you look at the big picture he threw the ball 47 times, and it is hard to throw the ball 47 times against a defense that knows that you have to throw it without turning the ball over. There is not really a good or bad interception, but two of the interceptions were great plays by the BC defense, especially where the defensive linemen adjusted to the dump off pass and stuck out one hand for the interception. Oddly enough I was somewhat pleased with the overall play. The d-backs showed improvement. The BC WRs were making great catches with VT players all over them. The D also played pretty well against the run. The biggest concern is the run game. If the O-Line and running backs would have been better, Willis would not have tried to carry the team on his back, less turnovers and I think VT would have won the game.
But we're throwing so often because we have no run threat. And we have no run threat because Willis is so inept at running the read option. Defenses know this and crash on the running back every time. Hooker would keep the defense honest and allow our running game to take a leap.
Eh. I won't defend Willis's ability to run the read option, but I think a more accurate statement would be "we have no run threat because we don't have any great running backs on the roster. That problem is further exacerbated by Willis ineptitude at running the read option."
We have no run game because our interior line is weak and got blown into the backfield every play. An offensive system shouldn't rely on the quarterback to run the ball to have an effective running game. Willis had some of our best runs anyway so idk what you're on about
Maybe both can be true but I remember at least 2 plays where Willis' read sent the ball directly into the teeth while the alternative was wide open. They were game plan breaking errors. The other explanation would be that they werent true read plays, which still means the coaches do not trust Willis.
Or just that the play caller thinks he knows best.
But the fact of the matter was our run game produced the following results:
King - 10 car - 3.3 ypc
McClease - 11 car - 2.9 ypc
Holston - 4 - 3.8 ypc
You can't possibly blame Willis as much as the line and their run blocking. You can't win a football game like that. They didn't need to respect our run game at all and could just sit on the screens that Cornelson called over and over
Yeah, Willis was the one who looked bad, but BC was making our offense one-dimensional.
I suppose everyone has made our offense one-dimensional over the past season and a half or more. I think the proof is basically in the pudding at this point that this offense has a broken run game. If it were an isolated occurrence I can understand, but this scheme struggles to run the ball game in and game out.
It's been a good while since we had a running game.
A LOT longer than a season and a half.
Yes the running game overall has been poor since right after the DW days, but we now have virtually no traditional interior run game under the new offense. Majority of big gains have come on jet sweeps or QB scrambles. RBs averaging 3 yds a carry or less is not going to cut it.
I'm going to wait until later on in the season to judge this run game. Even in years where we were very successful on the ground, we struggled establishing the run against BC defenses (2010,2011 for example). Personally, i think we have too much talent on the line (besides at center... thanks NCAA) to not be able to ground and pound.
The only highlights since DW:
We had a 1000+ yard rusher in 2015.
In 2016 we had a quarterback that could run very well.
If just one of those two horrible reads negated a 20 yard run, it would make those averages jump a yard per carry (more for that back).
That's still hypothetical. He could have made the correct read and the play still have been a tackle for a loss or it could have been an 80 yard td. There's no way of knowing that.
What we do know is that our traditional run game isn't effective. We can't just line up and run traditional power, dive, trap type run plays and get consistent yards.
I remember Fuente saying something along the lines of not having a runningback capable of making the last defender miss, and I agree with him to an extent, we don't have an elite runner anymore that can make something out of nothing, but at the same time I mostly disagree with him. Not often are we getting to the second or third level of the defense where that 1 miss matters. It feel like we are barely able to make it past the defensive front. I'd love to see French weigh in on this and tell I'm wrong (I probably am) but man it feels like our run blocking just isn't getting any push. I
I agree that this loss largely resulted from a combination of BC playing well and errors by VT offense (turnovers and penalties). Those things can be improved over the course of a season. We'll see if Fuente can make this happen.
Willis is the only QB on the roster, with any starts and wins on his record.
His mistakes are correctable. Unless he has the misfortune of getting injured, I foresee him staying at QB1 for the season.
-------
I believe you mean season. But essentially correct.
Yup.
Yes, but his mistakes from last year were supposed to be corrected during the off season. It is only one game, but that offense looked basically the same as it did last year. Some exciting things going on at the WR and the TE position, but other than that, the offense looked exactly the same. And that is, way too inconsistent with drive killing mistakes or turnovers. The offense, just like last year, showed flashes of really good stuff and execution, but that's it, just flashes. It has to start being more consistent.
Second look at the game: of the 5 turnovers 2 of them gave BC touchdowns and 2 of them were in our redzone. That's a potential 24-28 point swing. We should've won that game. We're not a top 15 team but we're a hell of a lot better than that final score
Similar to the Tennessee game
from Applause GIFs via Gfycat
Yup. I agree with most of this. Although, BC could probably say the same thing.
I'm heartened by the fact that the team vibe seems very different than last year. Last year just oozed defeat and dysfunction. This year seems to be a lot of kids that genuinely care about the team and are going to play with some passion. I think the former way led to very little improvement throughout the season and the latter will do the opposite.
I'm hoping the team is taking ODU seriously. If they do take this game seriously then I think it actually speaks to the unity and coaching going in the right direction. I'm hoping that we see a much cleaner and crisp game from everybody this week.
Either Willis practices better than he plays, or this performance is what Fuente expected out of him.
Assuming Willis practice>>>game, who is to say that Hendon or Quincy won't game>>>practice?
Frankly, to be riding the pine behind *that* performance would piss me off to no end.
I don't think that's how any of it works. Playing in games is harder than practice, not easier.
Practices are also a lot less hard-hitting and physically rigorous, these days. Mostly out of necessity; players are bigger, faster, and stronger than even a decade ago.
I highly doubt Fuente expects Willis to turn the ball over like that every game. For as bad as things are, that will probably be an outlier game for us.
FTFY
Bottom line, HH left the portal, decided to stick with Tech, by all accounts has worked hard and shown improvement. The man deserves some serious burn against ODU and Ferman. Fuente can stick with Willis as the starter, but HH deserves to show his stuff after the BC game. Let the performance of Willis and HH against ODU and Furman decide.
He needs to have a squeaky clean game against ODU if he wants to play again.
On the sack/fumble, the safety valve (Holston) was uncovered while Willis looked to the wrong side of the field. The throw intended for Patterson was 5 yards off line and into bracket coverage. The pick on the throw to Mitchell may have been a bad route but with 3 receivers there, I would have thought Smith on the slant was the throw...or just throw it away. The pick to the DL...oh dear.
This.
I don't want to take away from BC because they have to be in position and make the actual plays, but...
Every turnover was more of a bad play by us than a great play by BC. So, what could that mean?
1. It's a good sign, things will get fixed and this was a fluke?
2. It shows zero progress from last year and we're in for another long season?
Cornelson is drawing up too many stupid, predictable, uncreative plays that are not putting our players in a good position. He seems to fool himself far more than we fool the other team.
Counter argument: players aren't executing what cornelson is dialing up. That's been the case since he got here, so he's already proven he can't adjust to maximize the talent that we do have.
If you're in the boat of "BC is tough and has a tough defense," I fear we're going to play a lot of "tough" defenses this year. Again, I blame this on Cornelson, whatever he's running just is not fooling anyone except himself...I just hope it's not fooling Fuente for much longer.
Fix it, or change something.
Your initial premise is incorrect. The interception by Their d lineman was an incredible play. Willis need to get some air under it but it certainly wasn't gift wrapped - point being I thought that interception was more a great play by the d than a horrible play by Willis.
we must've been watching different games
Thank you for just bluntly telling me my opinion is wrong rather than saying you disagree.
I don't agree with your OPINION, and while it was a good play by the d lineman, he was OBVIOUSLY right there to make the play. He bailed backwards as soon our OL touched him and didn't sustain the block. Ball should not have been thrown, or at least certainly not in the manner it was thrown.
Like I said in my above post, didn't want to take away from the BC players because plays still need to be made, but that was a poor choice/throw.
My bad. Seriously-just being clear. I just felt like your statement came off so definitive I wanted to be definitively opposed to it. I should've been more tactful. And I will.
All good. +1
Obviously we both want what's best for our Hokies and I really hope that things turn around for both the players and coaches. I'm just so frustrated because on Saturday, offensively, I felt like it was 2018 again.
Do you mean three defenders on the endzone pick? Either way, I agree, he threw to the wrong WR and should have thrown to the slant. When he threw the ball he might have thought the safety was going towards the slanting WR and tried to thread it to a double covered WR which was still a bad decision ultimately.
I thought the pick to the DL was just a really good play by the DL, but ultimately Willis pays for it.
long enough for me not to care.
Will there ever be a Hokies QB who has the ability to look off receivers and go to others rather than just looking to one area of the field and throwing the ball there? I'm talking about doing it consistently, not occasionally.
The player you are looking for is a 5 star. And we can't even get 4 stars anymore, so don't expect a player like that.
Weren't Hooker and QP 4 stars?
Yeah, I was making light of our terribly rated 2020 recruiting class
Super leg to you. I agree with you, that's a quality in a QB I want more than any other qualities, like a Drew Brees type of guy. Don't hate me for saying this, but it might be Kadum or Kim.
I'd be shocked if Fuente benched Willis. I mean, he picked him as the starter for a reason, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of Willis & Hooker. I don't think one game with 3 picks, especially since he threw 4 TDs too, is going to cause Fuente to completely change his mind on who is better and bench Willis for someone who has never thrown a pass in a college football game.
He had a bad game....that being said what have we seen from Hooker (albeit in limited snaps) that could make anyone think that he is the answer?
Hooker has never thrown a pass in college and Patterson is 1-5 passing. I'd say they haven't been given a fair chance, but there is probably a reason for that.
A 67 yd td run last year where he was leaving Db's in the dust and some really nice work in the spring game I'd say
Willis is QB1 until he's proven incapable. I refuse to believe CornFu don't have a good reason to stick with him.
The thing about Willis is he has the best arm talent of all the QBs. When he makes a good decision, he can throw some really good balls. But his inconsistency and tendency to force the ball and make bad decisions is the flip side of the coin with him. I guess the coaches think that his upside outweighs the negatives, but you cannot turn the ball over that much and expect to win any football games. I also think that the offense requires a QB who can run and execute the reads properly, or else we have no rushing attack. This OL and rushing attack isn't built to blow people off the line, it's all on misdirection and catching people out of position with the reads. Tough decision because I think HH/QP would execute the ground game better, but we lose the passing ability and become too one-dimensional. We probably don't have a QB that can do everything required of him in this offense right now.
Yes but he's not good. JJ was clearly more accurate and a better decision maker. Now it appears Willis is QB 1 by default because no one else is good enough to challenge him. Probably why Burmeister came in and was immediately in contention to start. Accepting him as QB1 regardless of mistakes is accepting a likely mediocre season
Legged you, and I think JJ would have been the starter if he had stayed, but he also would have thrown it about 20 times for 175 yards and 2 tds. But VT still might have won with those numbers.
I agree with your points. All three of them. I'll take the victory and less gaudy stats every...stinkin'...day.
I just want to see an opportunity for Hooker to change the coach's mind. They dont have to outright pull Willis.
I think Fuente's offense needs a running quarterback. In fact, a lot of college offenses can pass the eye test with a quarterback who can run. I think Willis can be a running quarterback but too often he seems to throw too quickly when he has time in the pocket and run too late after the gap is closed. It's not all his fault, I'm sure he's being coached to go through progressions but sometimes just having a 1 read and run quarterback can win a game.
I think Fuente's offense needs Fuente rather than Corn.
It's the little stuff too though. I'm a RW fan. I think his ceiling is far higher than JJ's (still do). I remember one but think there were several times when he should have thrown the ball away yesterday but instead tucked the ball, tried to think he was the second coming of Tyrod, and ran out of bounds for a 2-yard loss. That shouldn't be happening if he is thinking like a senior QB with a season as starter under his belt and two off seasons to change his mindset. Kid tries to roll like Elway but he's not Elway.
Assuming ODU and Furman are blowouts, Hooker/QP should get some playing time in the second half of those games. If Willis doesnt do well against Duke and Miami, then it might be time to switch before the URI game. That game could be a tune up for the second half of the season for a new QB.
I'm on team Brendan Hill on this topic. It's too early to pull you senior starter who was the clear cut #1 after camp. Keep in mind the team knows this too. I hate the turnovers mainly because they were preventable, but let's see how this plays out over time.
Most of these comments are assuming it can't get worse. It definitely can. He is the starter for a reason and from what I know it wasn't really close. If Braxton was eligible - eh maybe. That's not to see Hendon might not be your guy in the future, just that right now in practice he is clearly the #2. Why are people assuming he is gonna be a better option? It's possible it's worse and you end up in a situation where yesterday's game is a game you get beat by 21+ because you don't make the other plays.
Ride it out and see what can be done. Ryan made some crazy good throws, but the obvious mistakes cancel much of this out. We have 4 weeks to prep for ACC play. There is time to figure this out before you play your divisional schedule.
Everyone loves the backup QB, until he becomes the starter and they learn why he was the backup.
You know what fuck all this shit. If Fuente is the QB whisperer, he needs to put his guy in and show us that his plan works. I'm tired of the incremental over 8 years plan to a star QB1. If Fuente has this wired, put QP in and let him roll. Show us what u got.
-
Woody HayesJustin FuenteThe other one's a touchdown - go figure.
First, I want VT to demolish ODU. If that means Willis stays in the whole game to put up 80+ points, so be it.
BUT, I'd rather be up many TDs in the first half, then bring Hooker into the game and run the offense full throttle to put up as many points as possible with him in there. Let him work and put up points.
Second, if the defense can't contain ODU and it's a tight game or within reach for them, got to play to get the win no matter what, so keep Willis in there as long as he needs to be.
Third, I don't want Willis to get gun shy like he did at the end of last year. I want him to keep throwing it and go for 400-500 yards if he has to. If I'm riding with a gunslinger, let the man throw the ball. That means Cornelson has to trust him even when he's making mistakes rather than get all conservative to try to limit mistakes.
Fourth, during the FCS games, assuming VT gets a good lead, put HH in the game as early as possible to let him run the offense full throttle the entire time he's in the game. Both games. If he plays really well, maybe get QP in there for a few series and let him run it full throttle instead of just running out the clock. There's no shame in laying it on these teams when you have guys who need the work.
Fifth, the old cliche "if you have two QBs you don't have one" makes a lot of sense, but I'd love to have HH be able to change the dynamic when needed, where he can run the RPO really well and also make a couple of deep passes or get it to the WR/TE for big plays. Probably won't happen. I can't see CornFu switching QBs like they switch RBs, but in big games where the offense just isn't clicking under the starter, it would be great to have a spark plug. (The counter argument to this one is the first Notre Dame game and the Arkansas game in 2016 where the team came from behind to win, but the starter was a big QB who could run the RPO well and crash through defenders to pick up yards).
I wonder why we keep having to take transfer QBs to play. It's like VT needs to take someone who learned the position from another coach Instead of coaching their own recruits. I personally am fine with watching a young QB make mistakes and watch him grow. A SENIOR transfer with 4TOs in one game??? Not so much.
See, I'm where most folks are at (put in Hooker/Patterson), then I see the tweet from Brenden Hill & start to wonder if it's true (being that he's played the game & whatnot). I feel torn. Because of what Hill said, I gotta concede the start to Willis. But for the love of Hokie, Coach, please, please, PLEASE give some dang reps to Hooker & Patterson (provided that we have @ least a 15+ pt lead).
I'm on the fence also. But Willis is a redshirt Sr. He should know how to protect the ball better than that. I'm all for keeping him the starter, based on Fuente believing he is still the guy and can help us win games. But I also feel strongly that you have to send a message to the QB room that the job is not guaranteed to anyone. Show that you have confidence in the other guys in the QB room and give them significant reps along with Willis these next two games. Don't wait for a 15 point lead. Give them meaningful reps during critical portions of the game. Then reevaluate the QB1 after each of the next two games.
I just think he has to send a message to the QB room and to the team, that if you aren't up to task, it is next man up. Otherwise HH will be wishing he had stayed in the portal, and who knows what might be going through QP's mind.
Now let's get some revenge on ODU and May every QB on the roster be part of the revenge party!
Well, the other thing is, ok, so Willis gets the nod for ODU & puts up (hopefully) damn near JJ>Howard stats. Ok. Gets the start against Furman & almost does the same thing. Look @ the level of competition. What happens when he stumbles & struggles against tougher competition (Duke, Miami)? Does Fuente start the process all over again so that we're stuck in a repetitive cycle?? I mean, what's it gonna friggin take??
That's why I think Willis remains starter but they all get playing time these next two games. Fuente won't look at just the stats, but he'll be able to grade them more specifically on their decision making, their reads, technique, in addition to how the team performs with each QB under center. Then you have a good idea of where each QB is against that level of competition. So going into Duke, if Willis starts to struggle, Fuente will have a good idea of when he should make the switch to HH.
I obviously know so much about this stuff \s, but this is just what makes sense to me. The ODU game cannot come fast enough. No better way to get this taste out of my mouth than with some sweet revenge!
Oh, I want that entire institution obliterated into absolute nothingness.
The same people who complained that not naming Willis the starter earlier hurt his psyche etc. now are pissed he wasn't benched in the middle of the first game.
Yeah, I'm gonna need the receipts on this.
Willis made a lot of mistakes. Not just the INTs. He missed many reads, didn't check down, bad passes (some of which were circus catches). We was terrible in the read option. Hopefully French will touch on how many times he handed off to the RB who was getting crushed, meanwhile the DE crashed down and he had clear green grass ahead of him.
I think Hooker deserves a shot (not necessarily to start, but get meaningful playing time). Some guys are just "gamers" (like Tim Tebow...who was a terrible practice player).
This. Realllly lookin forward to the French review. That should come out Tommorow perhaps? I know many of his articles are released on Tuesdays.
Honestly, though... where has Hooker shown he's a gamer?
Not rhetorical, I really don't know. I've only seen the Will and Mary game with the long run, and that one time he came in and the ball was snapped over his head.
Not saying he is...Just that he may be.
In the game action I've seen, he had a nice read option against W&M and great spring game. Other than the bad snap, that's it.
So the Leal truthers have now become the Hooker truthers. I love it.
If he has a poor game against ODU then perhaps some talk should arise. I mean if we don't smash ODU then we're in for a long season. As others stated that game was similar to Tenn. Take away turnovers and we smoke BC. As far as Corny, I don't know. I'm not smart enough to know what's good and what's not. However I did see the team consistently moving the ball down the field. We shot ourselves in the foot the majority of the time. I think OL had more to do with no running game than corn. It seemed like everytime we handed it off the OL thought they were on screen pass protection or something.
Anyhow, I hope Willis drops like 400 yds + and at least 5 TDs through the air on ODU this weekend. I hope the DL can get some pressure on their QB. I hope the D scores. I hope ST scores. I hope for a donut for ODU.
Go Hokies.
I could understand some of this if it was just one little thing here or there, but its not.
Willis had a terrible game on Saturday. The kind of game you expect out of a freshman who needs more experience, not a senior starter. He's staring down receivers leading the defensive coverage to the intended target. He's forcing the ball into horrible spots. He's making the wrong reads on the read option leading our backs into the teeth of the defensive front. From a senior starter, these are things you should just not see. And the fact we've been sold that he's the best option that we have, you have to understand if people are a little worried about just how bad the others might be. Combine that with the fact that Hooker and QP are in the upper third ranking of the recruits we have on the team right now (and third might even be underselling them a bit) and we've long been sold on this staff's ability to develop QBs....
And I'll go on record now and say I'll be a little surprised if we even see Hooker or Patterson get a chance to throw the ball consistently over the next couple games. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing from the time we have had Fuente here has shown we will allow it. We don't let the backup throw. They come in to run a read option version of the wildcat. and that is that. This has been a consistent theme since he's been here, so I wouldn't put any expectation on seeing what either of them have over the next few weeks. Judging from the past, I highly doubt they'll be given the playbook to do it. I hope to be proven wrong on this.
Willis throwing for 400 yards and 5 TDS in the air would be dope but it would also likely mean we couldn't run the ball against ODU and that would be a huge concern.
What if we have 400 yards rushing and 5 rushing tds?
"It's only ODU"
I won't lie, I would say that.
We have seen nothing out of our running game the last couple years into last week to show we care capable of an outburst like that. If it happens, it would absolutely be the right call to chalk it up as an outlier against a poor defense until we can prove it wasn't a fluke.
I'd rather have a balanced offense if that wasn't clear. Not sure why you think I want 400 yards of rushing.
It was implied (or at least I meant to) as 400 yards of rushing (and 5 rushing tds) in addition to 400 yards of passing by Willis and 5 throwing 5 tds.
TL;DR: I meant 400 yards of passing, 400 yards of rushing, 800 yards of total offense, 10 offensive tds. I figured everyone would be happy...
Oh yeah that would be amazing, don't get me wrong. I just don't see that happening haha. My point is I want a nice balanced attack.
You know what Mike Leach says about balance in the game of football...
It doesn't matter how many times you run the ball or throw the ball so long as you get it into the hands of as many different playmakers as possible.
The real Leal truthers were the ones calling for Jackson's job before and during the beginning of the ODU game last year. They became Willis stans during the off-season.
But it's a fair point that Leal should've gotten a ton more burn during the 2012 and 2013 seasons. Steiny then Lefty gave him exactly zero burn in several of the games that were over at halftime (also subjecting Logan to more potential injuries). Then UCLA comes around, Leal hasn't played dick and it shows.
Same thing here, Hooker should get time if we're blowing teams out. Only because he'll embarrass himself if he doesn't. But if Willis turns the ball over more than once vs ODU and we're still winning, why not just bench him for Hooker. If you're serious about correcting turnovers you gotta sit turnover happy dudes that's pretty much commonplace around the league.
A much longer leash than he should have.
Why are people so eager to jump to conclusions after one game where we had 5 turnovers?
Our sample size for this season is not large enough to determine if 5 turnovers is the norm for this team.
We lost a game we should've won by 14+ because of that, that's how sports work.
If we rack up 3+ turnovers against ODU, then maybe we can have a conversation.
Let's just chill and see what the next few weeks has in store before we start talking about QB changes and firing coaches.
My observations over the past couple days lead me to believe there are 2 schools of thought among fans regarding this.
1) Sample size for this season, is small, but sample size for the coach's tenure is long. You can make judgements starting now about the larger sample size.
2) Sample size for this season is small, and is considerably more relevant than any past behavior. You can not make judgements about this season because of that small sample size. We need to wait and see.
Both arguments have merit, and I think its just a matter of perspective, and what you find relevant. Both camps seem to be equally invested imo.
I don't want to overreact one game either, but the offense ran 89 plays. 4 of these plays resulted in TDs and 4 resulted in TOs (not counting the muffed punt). 89 plays is actually a decent sample size of plays. But it is only one defense, so in that sense, it is a small sample size of opponents. This game will almost certainly be an outlier at the end of the season, but it does suggest that Willis will turn the ball over at a similar rate to last year.
It's not one game. It's the hallmark of the Justin Fuente era. A myriad of mental mistakes, unpreparedness, and lack of any definable identity for the team.
Maybe because its not just about this one game
I don't think we can draw too many conclusions from this game. I think we'll have a better idea of how things are after ODU.
That being said, I do think people are focusing on the score as justification that we're not far off though. I think BC went to a ball control offense in the second half. I think if they stuck with their hurry up the entire second half, they wouldve scored at least 3 more times. They may have fudged their defense in the process but the way our offense was going, I dont think we wouldve scored that many more times.
I think they end up being a 9 win team so at least we played this way against someone good and I am hoping that we actually do clean things up and Willis miraculously learns when to keep and when to give. That alone would make such a difference to this offense.
Side note: It is horrible that we started the season in conference. I'm pretty pissed we either didnt play some cupcake or arrange an out of conference team to play against. A weak win against someone or a loss against a good ooc team would be a good chance to see weaknesses and work on those before going into a conference game.
My slept on it a couple of days and thought about it a lot takes are the following:
a) We lost by a touchdown to what is historically a good solid team. We had a turnover margin of -4 during that loss. Two of which were in the endzone.
b) The officials did us no favors by giving us the ball on the 1 in our one interception when the momentum clearly took him into the endzone for a touchback.
c) Our defense was flat out bad in the first half giving up 360+ yards of offense. Our defense was lights out in the third quarter in giving up ZERO yards. Our defense gave up approximately 70 yards in the fourth quarter and 7 points. Bud can still make adjustments.
d) We played a lot of linemen and got a lot of experience.
e) Our QB still can't be trusted with the ball over the middle. Sigh.
f) Our run game is still bad.
g) Our potential is very high, and I am an optimist by nature. We learn from this loss and go on a winning streak.
Can we devise an "Eat Crow Thread"?
We catch a few early and/or super hot takes about a topic relating to the season and see how they pan out by the end of the season?
Then we re-visit them and have a laugh? Could be fun...?
My hot take: Ryan Willis etches his name into "The Beard of DeChrisopher" : 21st century QBs Undefeated vs UVA: MV7, MV5, LT3, Josh Jackson, Jerod Evans, Michael Brewer, Tyrod Taylor, Sean Glennon, and Grant Noel. That's right, UVA. You couldn't beat Grant Noel.
I like this.
I was *really* worried about Mike Young's recruiting and I will happily slather a crow in Camp Sauce and chow down.
I'm confused.... is it a sauce?.... or is it a marinade?.... is a marinade considered a sauce?.... is a sauce considered a marinade?
Lol this really makes we want to just go though really old threads and find really wrong takes. Here's one such random example...
I would love nothing more than for this to happen