During spring football, hope "springs" eternal. Hope and expectations for the following football season abound, and any struggles can be dismissed as the learning curve that every college football team must endure as seniors graduate and future NFLers head to the draft.
That is all well and good, but a dark cloud has slowly crept over my spring football experience. The biggest Hokie problem on offense last season was a lack of an identity. One series, they were a spread team. Next series, they are in the I with twins to the power. Next series they are in one back running zone plays. No substitutions. No variance. They could have been even more difficult to play against, but the lack of commitment resulted in shaky offensive line play, busts in blocking coverage, and poor execution of key down and distance situations by erstwhile Superman David Wilson.
Now here we are, eagerly awaiting drops of information from spring practice. While multiple beat writers and several bloggers have provided a small window into individual performances, both good and bad. However, little did we realize that once again, the Hokies are trying to change their offensive philosophy. This is a huge story in my opinion, and it has received no traction. And, it is the continuation of a disturbing pattern that we have seen in the Virginia Tech football program since 2002.
Let's go back in time if we can. The Hokies rose to the upper echelon of college football in the early 90's on the backs of hard working second tier recruits and a very basic philosophy: control the game offensively with power I running and vertical play action passing, while dominating defensively with an 8 man blitzing front and creating additional scoring through blocking kicks and punts. Those building blocks coupled with the infusion of a once in a lifetime talent named Michael Vick lead the Hokies to within 12 minutes of a national championship. Then, the 2000 season saw the Hokies denied an undefeated season after Vick rolled an ankle and couldn't play against Miami. The Hokies continued to have powerful running games that kept them in contention in the Big East, but opponents began to find holes in the wide-tackle six defense and the antiquated passing game struggled under Grant Noel.
There were two major events took place from 2002-2004. First, perhaps caving to the demands of their first "super recruit" Kevin Jones, the Hokies offensive coaching staff changed their run blocking scheme from a two back eye that featured power, option, and trap plays, to a one back, zone blocking scheme similar to the NFL flavor of the moment Denver Broncos. Second, after two seasons of being lit up by good passing teams (Larry Fitzgerald, Javon Walker nightmares anyone?) Bud Foster adapted the unique gap defense in order to better adjust to more sophisticated passing attacks.
Since that moment, Virginia Tech's defense has returned as the dominant unit and the face of the program. For whatever disadvantages the gap defense has to recruiting, the unique scheme is incredibly difficult for opposing teams to prepare for (almost like the wishbone of defenses.) The Hokies recruit to the defense rather than recruit pure talent and try to fit a square peg into a round hole. Meanwhile, we have seen the Hokie offense reboot. First, we saw the zone scheme. Then under Sean Glennon, we heard how the Hokies were modernizing their passing attack to a more pro-style look. Last season, we heard about how they were going to spread things out to get David Wilson in space and to use Logan Thomas in the running game. Now, we hear about coaches traveling to Texas to learn Boises offense and the Pistol.
What do all those prior reboots have in common? Each time, the Hokie coaches changed the offense as a response to another team's success, or to fit the skill set of a particular talent on their team. Not once was there a full philosophical commitment to adopting the full offensive package for each look, where each play serves as a counter action to another and where you can create tendencies that make a defense react instead of act. As result, the Hokies offense has turned into a mismatched garbled mess, where one series the offense runs spread, the next they run power, and each on requires different fundamentals and different muscle memory to be successful. The players often lack confidence in the scheme, and every year, the same thing happens down the stretch. The Hokies offense starts to clique when it returns to a power running game and vertical play action. The common thread since the early 90's is Frank Beamer, which tells me he believes that a power running game and play action wins games, and he takes the reins back from his offensive coaches as games start to matter more in conference play.
So, now we hear that the Hokie staff learned Boise’s offense, the pistol, and the counter action of the single wing/Hback spread, trying to take advantage of the Hokies unique talent with Logan Thomas and perhaps compensate for a young running back corps and an offensive line that struggles. It stinks of the Hokies jumping on a bandwagon and adopting techniques that were used to beat them. Unfortunately, the teacher always knows more than they teach the student, and because of the Hokie track record I just don't buy into the changes.
First, if the coaches are going to make this change, they must commit to it long-term and recruit to the offense. You can't learn the nuances of any offensive system by going to a 3 day clinic and taking bits and pieces of it. If the Hokies are going to be a spread option team, or a spread single wing team, your player have to be taught the fundamentals at a core level. It is difficult to explain here, but the blocking philosophy and backfield movement and footwork of a spread team like Baylor or Texas is not remotely similar to the blocking and footwork required for a single wing style like Clemson, Auburn, or the Urban Meyer Florida teams.
Second, if they make the change, Frank Beamer must stick with the system even if the offense struggles. Time and time again, we have seen the #NewHokies offense, and time and again, we get back to what works to win the ACC. This year, it finally backfired in the Sugar Bowl.
Third, if the change is to maximize Logan Thomas, I would only incorporate spread option and stay away from the pistol and the single wing. Both the pistol and single wing require unique footwork fundamentals. The Hokie coaching staff has invested a significant amount of time changing Logan from an athlete that can throw to a quarterback. He learned well, and they should build on that approach. If anything, they should take their bread and butter lead option play that includes a jet sweep and a counter, and then add the counter option (dive right, QB left) that Vince Young excelled in at Texas. They should work to create more layering in the passing game to give Logan quick throws in the face of pressure, and they should continue to build different looks into the wide receiver screen game where DJ Coles can really be a unique weapon. If the Hokies tighten up what they did last year, Logan Thomas will be excellent. You don't take the tires off a Bentley just because the 20's looked nice on a Honda. Go spread, stay in it, recruit to it, and make it work.
The spring game is going to be interesting. If we see pistol and single wing featured this spring, you can bet your bottom dollar that offensive identity will be my number one theme for every game film review next fall. Until then, hope "springs" eternal.
Comments
Nice...
The whole time I was reading, I kept thinking about that Vince Young team where they just ran variations of that option play all the way to a national title -- so I was happy to see you reference it in the end.
This makes too much sense, but not as much sense as sending a wide receiver out for a punt strategy he's never tried. So, back to the drawing board Mr. French.
Yep, Vince Young made the read option where the back dives left and the QB reads the backside instead of playside DE a thing of beauty. It also makes it easier to run play action as you can drag the backside slot against the flow of the defense and the QB is going in the same direction.
Also, MORE WAGGLE. The Hokies were deadly last year, and this year Logan will have bigger targets on the deep double move off the waggle action. Lets hope Marcus Davis can get the timing down like Coale did there at the end of the year.
pistol and single wing
I'm with you french, I was a bit weary when I heard about those being installed. Its the flavor of the month and no we'll never commit to it full time, nor should we. That having been said, it doesnt hurt to throw some wrinkles in there right? Break it out at the right time, should lead to points. The only thing that stopped Clemson's O last year was turnovers and maybe it'll get the kids excited.
excellent article btw
Completely concur
If VT wants a spread offense, they need to hire the correct offensive coordinator.
I agree with the need to have an offensive identity, get good at it, and stick to it. Of course, you gotta modulate and adapt with the players around you. But running 3-4 different offensive styles will just make you average at all of them, and not excellent at any of them. Jack-of-all trades vs. expert craftsman.
VT should stick to the power run game, mix in the pass, dominate on defense and special teams. Now, with LT3, mix in quick passing game, some QB draws, and with the athletic RBs, some RB screens. Feel free to get creative, mix in more motion, split the TE out, motion the RB out to the slot, utilize bunch formations. Good offenses find a way to get their players in match-ups they can win. That can be done in any offensive scheme, just have to find a way to exploit it.
"But running 3-4 different offensive styles will just make you average at all of them, and not excellent at any of them. Jack-of-all trades vs. expert craftsman."
Nailed it.
Watching a little bit of film from Saturday
Courtesy of @haleyVT, I watched a youtube video of about 15 plays, filmed from ground level. It was difficult to get a good grasp of everything, but in the limited video, I saw a couple of things that I have not seen the writers include in their tweets or articles.
1) Yes friends, there is video footage of Logan Thomas running the counter zone read option play, which I screamed for the Hokies to run all year, and sure enough, it was well blocked and Logan got a long run before the whistle blew it dead. Last year, the Hokies ran four plays from the gun running package. The primary action had the tailback crossing across Logan's face and sweeping opposite of where he lined up, where he served as the lead blocker if Logan read keep. Logan then followed and turned up at the inside shoulder, with the DE or OLB playside being used as the option man. The Hokies ran two counters to that action. One was a straight speed option to the tailback side, and the other was an interior counter handoff out of the two backs. If you were a linebacker on D, last year you knew the Hokies were either passing, or a run would go opposite where the tailback lined up.
The counter read is a more typical play in a spread, run best by Vince Young at Texas. The initial action is the same, but the tailback reaches the mesh point and runs much more inside. The OL leaves the weakside DE unblocked, and Logan reads the DE. If the DE crashes with the dive, Logan keeps and has a weakside safety all alone to run over. If the DE stays outside, the TB veer dives inside the DE. With Logan such a dynamic threat on the lead play, this counter at the very least will lessen the pursuit of the D, and at best could result in some easy big runs. On the play in the video, the DE (I think Collins) takes the dive, which is how the Hokies played against this play all year. The backside LB, in this case backer Chase Williams, also pursued the dive/sweep action and vacated to early. Logan had an easy read, and flew up the weakside 7 gap for a 15 yard run. The action, and the defensive bust were very similar to the only TD the Hokies gave up to Arkansas State last season (with JWG busting the assignment.)
2) Hokie DE's had numerous plays were they were in 2 point stances. Gayle, McCray, and Wilson were all spotted on plays standing up. I am not sure if this is a new wrinkle or only something they will do on passing downs, but I didn't think Gayle got much pressure last year from a 2 point stance.
3) The Hokie starting offensive line didn't look as bad as advertised in my limited sample size. Benedict may struggle in space, but he flattened Kris Harley with one good pop in the shoulder on a running play. On a QB pressure by Maddy, Maddy lined up on Benedict, but did a hard loop stunt inside where he then beat Andrew Miller, while Benedict effectively picked up a Chase Williams blitz. Unless there was a communication error, it looked like that was a Miller pooch-screw. Painter, Becton, and Wang looked servicable, but there isn't much to go on. Meanwhile, as advertised the starting D really made the Hokies backups look poor, especially Caleb Farris. There is some footage of several plays he would like to forget. Gibson also had some ole moments, while Goins looked outmatched in the strength department.
4) Other than Marcus Davis, David Mellstrom is the only guy who stood out catching the ball, but as a walk on he likely will be scout team bound. The Ronnie Van Dyke pick was a bad drop by Roberts, even on a high pass.
5) Speaking of Van Dyke, everything we know about the Hokies says Tweedy or JWG will start, but from what I saw, this kid needs to be on the field. Excellent coverage from the whip spot, and a real knack for steping into the gap to take away the cutback. At his size, if both Taylor and Edwards are not healthy, I wouldn't be shocked if Van Dyke gets moved to backer in a desperation move. He really looks like a good player. Tyler, Gayle, and Maddy also stood out. Hopkins got kind of lost in the much, so it was tough to tell, and it seemed like Collins was backside on every play the 1st team D is on in the video.
6) I saw spread. I didn't see pistol. Again, limited sample size.
re:
3. benedict apparently smashes face on run plays.
5. definitely playing a sr.
6. definitely practicing pistol and the 4 DE DL look this spring.
This sound like an argument that teams should never use a multiple offense.
That would depend on your definition of a "multiple offense." I am focused on blocking scheme. Let's take our defending national championship team, Alabama. Alabama run a small number of running plays, using the same blocking fundamentals (in their case utilizing a straight ahead zone power with down blocking and pulling) on every running play. These fundamentals NEVER change, even though they run the same basic play out of a bewildering variety of formations and motion combinations. The linemen use the same muscle memory, the same movement, and have relatively consistent assignments. Blocking in a system like Oregon (veer, which uses double teams while leaving an option man unblocked and requires much shorter blocking engagement) is very different from Clemson's (downblocking/counter action), which is very different from Alabama's.
On the other hand, the Hokies do a little bit of everything. One series, you see two tight ends (always motioning and always lined up to the power side, never balanced) and they run a zone play or power series. The zone play requires everyone zone blocking to playside and maintaining their blocks (which rarely works because the Hokies linemen traditionally have not been athletic enough or they have had quick guys that don't have enough lead in their pencil to avoid being driven backwards.) Meanwhile, the power play, which resembles the old Green Bay power sweep, features downblocking by the two TE's and tackle, with the guard pulling around creating a seal on the corner. It only requires the downblockers to cut off penetration and the angle of the block cuts off pursuit even if they fail to hold the block. Meanwhile, the guard often matches up with a corner or safety, which is a mismatch. Even in one "set/series" that the Hokies run, there is two different styles of blocking, and the results vary WILDLY.
Now, the next series they run I formation, where the Hokies have been completely unsuccessful running the ball the last two seasons, yet do an outstanding job in the screen game. The next series, the Hokies come out in the shotgun, in which all the running plays feature some veer blocking and some single wing power blocking similar to their sweep.
The results speak for themselves. The Hokies offense has been woefully inconsistent, even on a series to series basis, and especially in key short yardage down and distance situations. This is even more frustrating when you take into account that since the begining of the Tyrod Taylor era, the offense has had a much higher talent level than the defense. Variations are ok, but you have to have a core identity, or what I would call a "bread and butter" offense where, if you need to run the clock out to win a ball game by getting first downs, you can do it. The Hokies have improved all aspects of the passing game (except interior blitz pickups) to the point where they have an identity there. They must do the same for the running game.
If they decide to go zone read, gun, spread as that bread and butter, then the offensive coaches must get Beamer's buy-in and they must embrace it the way Oregon has. If not, then they need to refine the current system to tighten up the blocking fundamentals.
Okay, yes, you and I are actually in complete agreement, though as I read the OP I was starting to honestly think you wanted us running the same formation every down. It's a blocking issue. It has been for years. The question is why. I know everyone has their theories, but after six season I'm sold that Newsome is all potatoes, no meat. I just think he's in over his head in 1A football. Like you pointed out, he's got his lines trying to block a different way for each formation we trot onto the field.
Then again, is that Newsome or Stinespring? Stiney is the one who loves him some buffet style offense: a little of this, a little of that, and you just kind of mix it all together on one plate.
I actually like the idea of us using the pistol. I think the formation has a LOT to offer our current offensive roster and their particular skill sets. And if nothing else, it will eliminate that goddam twelve yard deep handoff to the tailback five seconds after the snap. But how the hell are Newsome and Stinespring going to draw up the blocking schemes for it? If they've got our line trying to block a fifth different way for our fifth different offensive package, we might as well cork the pistol now.
But seriously, WHY do we not dedicate ourselves to one blocking scheme and build our packages around that?
what's your background french?? you seem to REALLY know your shit ... i don't profess to know enough about blocking fundamentals or overall offensive strategy to have an intelligent conversation about it ... but it would seem to me that if someone on a message board who can talk/speak pretty intelligently about this (and please don't take that as an insult -- it's meant to be very complimentary), then why wouldn't offensive coaches of a perennial top 25 D-1 program be thinking the same way?? again -- that's meant to be very complimentary of you
to disclose, i try not to get on the same bullshit bandwagon that all of the other "fire stinespring"ers get on -- but your opinion -- is VT's offensive identity antiquated, ancient ??? and is bryan stinespring WAY in over his head like others believe??
i try not to beat up on the offensive line like others do either .. but i've never felt like we've really had the big'uns up front to trully play "smash mouth", I-formation, alabama-like offensive football. based on us (historically) having a smaller, quicker o-line and great talent at qb/rb/wr .... spreading the defense out has always seemed more sensible to me ... but hey -- what the hell do i know?? :)
I addressed this below as to my background, but I can tell you, while the Hokie offensive coaches have become more innovative and MUCH more aggressive in the passing game (how many times would you have seen Marcus Vick throwing a double move for a touchdown with a lead and time winding down in a half?) They have to improve on the fundamentals, not the playcalling and aggression.
to add
i've felt that way ... about our offensive in general for a long time ... but last season it really came to a head when i see our offense, a decent offense, getting knocked around by clemson mediocre defense (aside from a few d-lineman) TWICE ... and then at the end of the season, literally watch west virginia rip that same defense's ass apart .. and i'm thinking to myself the entire team .. our offensive talent is EVERY BIT AS GOOD ... EVEN BETTER than west virginia ... i know it's a lot more complicated than that .. and it's only one game ... our offense just seems SO predictable, conservative -- it's like we're content in letting the defense win the battles and our offense score ENOUGH to get by -- it's frustrating
i've been wanting VT to move to a spread (or single wing) or something .. for a long time --- not necessarily all-out -- but it would be nice to see 50% pro sets, 50% spread/pistol/whatever sets
I think you hit the nail
on the head with part of the reasons for trying different offensive sets :... our offense just seems SO predictable, conservative -- Thats a huge problem and has been for years thing is I agree with French on most points rather go all in on at least a base offensive identity and recruit that way to maximize the out-put instead of plug in holes in a leaky system
me too
but incorporate two (or more) different sets that can keep the same blocking schemes in place.
Honestly, I don't think the system is antiquated. I thought the offensive playcalling the last two seasons has been as aggressie as any offensive gameplan in the country (with the exception of stretches of the Michigan game.)
The problem is that other programs create a system, which they work to perfect, and then the Hokies coaching staff adopts bits and pieces of it. You read it yourself, the coaching staff went to Texas for a short coaching clinic with the former Boise offensive coordinator, or they picked up the power play that Cam Newton and Tim Tebow excelled at. Offense is a system, a system where every play as action and movement that sets up another play so defenses can not key on it. Last season, the Hokies were running, in essence, three different offensive systems at the same time, and none of those systems featured the full compliment of plays, player packages, or options that it would have as a base offense for another team. That allows defenses to key on certain actions, while forcing offensive players to be mentally responsible for multiple types of plays that have different action and movement. That is tough for NFL players, and really unfair to college kids who are still maturing and who have academic responsibilities off the field. Face it, if you think too much on a football field, it ties up your feet.
On defense, you know that if you are a defensive end, your first season you will learn your reads, keys, and stunts for Bud Foster's defense. In year 2, you get into the rotation in practice, and you are probably thinking through each play, which causes you to "play slow" (remember, play fast is a term you hear the defensive coaches use all the time.) In years 3 and 4, you have had enough repetition to develop muscle memory, and your brain automatically responds each play on the field, and you have a defense that most of the time looks dominant WITHOUT HAVING ELITE DOMINANT TALENT.
Meanwhile, on offense, those kids who are learning in year 1 are having to pick up an entirely new set of footwork fundamentals, blocking rules, and line calls every year they make these changes and additions. How many times did you watch a Redskins game when Jason Campbell was QB and the announcers mentioned that he had a different OC every year in college and in the pros. It is a huge disadvantage.
So, you ask what a guy like me, who played for awhile but doesn't have coaching experience, knows that the Hokie coaches don't know. And, I think the answer is very simple. There are too many cooks in the kitchen, and none of the offensive coaches have the authority or the mindset (including Beamer) to completely commit to one style of offense, yet at the same time, I think they have felt the heat from fans who were raised on running post-corners in Madden 2000 to be "more aggressive, more innovative" etc. on offense and they have tried to add wrinkles to add that aspect. Mike O'Cain is the one guy who could be that voice (his work with Logan Thomas deserves a ton of credit), but his influence is only felt in the passing game and he is not a guy that is well grounded in the run game. The other coaches on offense are their for their recruiting (Stinespring, Beamer) or they are old guard Beamer. Those are not the kind of folks (who have value) that come in and "be the boss" on offense.
Who knows, this may be the year that they really do jump the shark and go spread full time. The QB's and RB's they are recruiting fit that system. The video from last weekend shows everything in a spread look. They could be trying to make the move. But, if we go to the spring game next week, and we see one series of one back, one series of I, one series out of the gun where they only run pass pro and draw plays, and one series of single wing spread and zone reads, I may lose what little hair I have left.
It is moments like this where I wish I figured out how to use an online play editor to use the wing-t offense buck sweep series to show how an offense builds an identity. On the 38 series, there are four basic plays. Every play uses the same backfield action; the offensive line basically blocks the same every play with slight variations by the pulling guard, and the defense has to account for every eligible player on the field. With the same movement, defenses have to account for an interior fullback trap (which is actually the "big play" play), the buck sweep, an inside reverse, and a bootleg where two guys are always open (ALWAYS) on a non-passing down.
The same type of mindset should have been built around the Logan Thomas zone read power play, but with a very rare exception, counters were never used (speed option-see first touchdown against UVA, QB counter, slot counter, bootleg, Y dump off play action). Those plays keep a defense from completely selling out on the lead play, which is why Cam Newton and Tim Tebow were so effective. If their teams didn't keep the defense honest with those counters (see Florida's loss to Alabama in the last Tebow SEC Championship) the lead play is rendered ineffective.
A great example of this is the Clemson game in Charlotte. Clemson only had 2 guys from the guard-center-guard of the Hokies all game long, with NOBODY but those two guys in between the football and the endzone on the snap. They stacked everything to stop the Hokies from running the ball outside the tackles, and because the Hokies had no inside running game to counter their outside running game, they couldn't make Clemson pay, and when the Hokies got behind the sticks it allowed Branch and Thompson to pin their ears back and get Thomas.
I think
You make a solid point with the fact of too many cooks in the kitchen who's really making the calls on offense part of the the lack of identity is a microcosim of the overall offensive coaching staff
Hitting all my qualms about the Hokie Offense
French, you say it more elegantly and with such greater detail than I could, but I have the exact same opinion about the VT offense. If VT wants to excel on offense, they need that arrogant, "this my f'ing offense" coordinator who believes in his own offense. Could you imagine Urban Meyer or Chip Kelley adding new offensive schemes that they retrieved from the former Boise offensive coordinator? Hell no. They have their own offense and they run that to perfection, because it's THEIR OWN.
As long as VT is dominant on defense and special teams, I'll be happy. But, I'm not expecting VT to all the sudden become an offensive juggernaut. It won't happen, but I just hope the coaches don't muck up the offense so much the O-line and everyone else look lost. We need the athletes to make plays, not to think about "oh, wait, what do I do in the pistol?"
It is certainly interesting to talk to other Tech fans about the offense. I could care less about offense being exciting, because I believe that you can run any system if your execution is outstanding and you have complete buy-in by your players. In order to be champions, every player on the field should believe that if the coach calls a fullback dive on 3rd and 7, not only will they get the 1st down, but they will score. Execution and buy-in can mitigate talent.
When I played in college, we had perhaps the most predictable I formation offense in history. Our offensive line coach and OC used to tell us that we weren't trying to trick anyone. I can guarentee you, we ran a counter-trey on 35% of our running plays, and if we were 1st a goal, we were running speed option to the short side of the field or we were running bootleg to the short side of the field. And, with everyone in the stadium knowing what we were running, we won 4 straight ODAC titles and had a 47 game home winning streak. Execution is key, not innovation or aggression.
I'd be willing to bet last year's Hokie team lead the country in completions over 15 yards, especially where the ball travelled over 15 yards in the air before the catch. Al Davis would have been envious of our vertical passing game. What killed us in big spots (vs Clemson and Michigan) was the inability to run the ball effectively to compliment the passing game.
One last thought before I head to DC for my flag game. Remember, these "innovative offenses" are not really innovative at all. Clemson's offense is the single wing, which harkens to the days of Red Grange and Ernie Nevers. The spread that Oregon is running is splitback veer, which has been around at least since the invention of the wishbone. These are not new concepts, but as defenses are redesigned to stop the newest "thing", people adjust. I am curious to see when the "T" offense (pro splitbacks or near/far formation) makes it's return to college football.
Legit
Im loving this thread. Thanks for the awesome breakdown French. You have been able to make sense of everything I've been watching for years. We watch the subtle confusion and wonder why. It always seems like the offense isn't completely on the same page, especially the line. I can't understand why we don't have a standard (bread and butter) package or play set installed. I know people like to ride around on the fire Stiney bandwagon, but how can you not put this on the offensive coordinator? I would love for him to grab this team and get the offense back on track (ie total player buy in and standardized) or else get someone who can. I love the point of not necessarily needed an "explosive" or "flashy" offense, we just need to get the job done.
Second on the kudos
Great breakdown and analysis of our offensive woes. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced Stinespring has the intimate knowledge of any single offense necessary to implement the necessary changes. When we take a crash course on new offenses every year and try to integrate them into our own, it scares the shit out of me. I have no problem with us talking concepts with different coaches, but we shouldn't be installing whole schemes just to run some a few plays from a new, bastardized set.