Basically title.
Imagine it is the end of 2015 again. Frank Beamer has just beaten Tulsa in his final game. Is the program in a better position for success then or now?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
this thread in about 2 hours
Laughing because with a near-two-year-old running around, this is what Elmo has turned my life into. I do think this has the potential for a solid discussion though.
... So glad my youngest made it out of his Elmo phase, ...but he still carries his Elmo blanket around religiously. He's basically Linus.
Hey, that photo reminds me of something relevant to this conversation...
Oh, yeah...
I had managed to block it out for a while, like many of the folks participating in this conversation also seem to have done...
Nobody forgot about this.
That game, which we could have won until the last snap, was not as bad as:
Duke 45 VT 10, Pitt 52 VT 22 (the first time I ever turned a VT game off at half time for the sake of my mental health), ODU 49 VT 35. All three of these happened in the last two seasons. Three of the most embarrassing moments of my fandom, the only three times I've ever truly questioned whether or not we will ever be consistently good at football again.
I still believe there is hope, but we need to turn this recruiting class around (there is some promise), and we need to have a great season on the field.
edit: Here's a great spot or above this to collapse this whole comment chain.
Oh dear God I had forgotten about that Pitt game. They averaged like nine yards a carry.
... it was several yards more per carry. I don't recommend revisiting that box score.
The second half of that game was almost comical. When Farley got thrown into the 3rd level of Dante's Inferno I think I actually laughed.
Edit: I just wanted to come back and say that I made the mistake of looking at the box score. 13.9 yards per play allowed is... something.
That game, which we could have won until the last snap...
That we had to celebrate a 0-0 tie with Wake Forest was as pathetic as it gets. Any of those games we had a chance in. For me it's more interesting if we have an offense. The thing I haven't recognized has been our defense the last few years.
For me, the team is better now than it was in that Wake Forest game.
Not even a remotely defensible take that only our defense got worse. Our defense was 18th in 2015, 21st in 2016, and 9th in 2017. 9th is elite. 2018 (77th) was the ONLY sub top 40 defense since then.
2018 is the only year our offense has been better than the defense statistically under Fuente. That includes 2016.
Edit: you ninja edited
I know this board doesn't want to hear it, but I'm pretty sure all those defenses were still under Bud Foster.
I just posted the numbers. He had ONE horrible year in 2018. Last year wasn't VT level outside of a stretch of ND, Wake, GT, and Pitt.
Our offense was only better than our defense in 2018.
We've had one top 40 O under Fuente. We've had that from the defense in 3/4 years.
I'm not comparing the defense to the offense.
I'm comparing the defense to what it was when VT was a dominant team in the ACC Coastal.
Edit: VT was in a slide when Fuente took over. It's not at all surprising to me that it was going to take time to turn that around.
Our offenses haven't been better than the good years either...
2005: 20th
2006: 64th
2007: 65th
2008: 89th
2009: 12th
2010: 12th
2011: 17th
2012: 63rd
2013: 77th
2014: 86th
2015: 57th
Fuente
2016: 39th
2017: 71st
2018: 41st
2019: 56th
Forgive me if I'm not as bullish on Fuente's offenses.
Also, don't let it slip by you that we had 4 top 20 offenses during the 10+ win streak. Our peaks on offense were even higher than Fuente.
I'm just stating the numbers. I hope as much as anyone that we have an elite offense in 2020 and I never have to pull these numbers again.
Is it an improvement? Like you said, just the numbers.
2012: 63rd
2013: 77th
2014: 86th
2015: 57th
Fuente
2016: 39th
2017: 71st
2018: 41st
2019: 56th
For the sake of this entire thread via title:
2015: 31st overall, 57th offense, 18th defense. 2016 recruiting class ranked 38th.
2019: 38th overall, 56th offense, 39th defense.
2020 recruiting class ranked 67th.
Why wouldn't you use all four years of Fuente, vs the last four years of Beamer?
Are we just going to use the numbers selectively to make a case, or are we looking at the entire trend? If you're going to be a numbers guy, be a numbers guy.
You do realize I have provided all of the numbers in this discussion and all you have done is just redirect the conversation. You're not proving anything I'm saying wrong you're just evading, over and over and over again.
I'm just saying if you're going to introduce numbers, don't just use the numbers that support your argument, but the numbers for all the relevant years. I'd suggest the four years just prior to Fuente arriving vs the four he's been at VT.
2012: Recruiting rank: 21st -- Overall 31st, Offense 63rd, Defense 8th
2013: Recruiting rank: 28th -- Overall 26th, Offense 77th, Defense 1st
2014: Recruiting rank: 29th -- Overall 45th, Offense 86th, Defense 11th
2015: Recruiting rank: 42nd -- Overall 31st, Offense 57th, Defense 18th
2016: Recruiting rank: 26th -- Overall 22nd, Offense 39th, Defense 21st
2017: Recruiting rank: 24th -- Overall 21st, Offense 77th, Defense 9th
2018: Recruiting rank: 26th -- Overall 55th, Offense 41st, Defense 77th
2019: Recruiting rank: 75th -- Overall 38th, Offense 56th, Defense 39th
*Each recruiting class ranking is from the class that corresponds to that season so 2012 is based on the 2013 class rank, etc. because that is the class that was being recruited by that staff during the season and signed that dec/february after the season.
*The rankings I used for the 2016 and 2020 classes on the previous comment were the 247 inhouse rankings, which I thought were wrong when I posted them, but for some reason thats what pulled up on my phone.
Thanks.
For readability, I'll respond below.
Just curious - Is there any difference in SP+ rating from 2016 and 2005? Given how much offenses have changed in the last 15 years, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the 20th best offense in 2005 was the 50th best offense today. We might've had this discussion before, but I don't recall.
Raw scores of top years (rank in 2016 for comparison)
2016: 34.5 (39th)
2005: 35.6 (33rd)
2009: 36.6 (29th)
2010: 39.6 (18th)
2011: 33.5 (45th)
I'm doing this because you asked, but I still think it's more relevant to discuss in terms of rank in their given year for comparison to the rest of the league and their peers in that year.
A top 20 offense is a top 20 offense in comparison to the league and competition you played that year.
Great offensive coordinators today still land in that top 20 relative to their peers.
I don't believe there [is] a great deal of value in comparing Fuente to offenses in 2005 because he isn't being graded on how good offenses were 15 years ago, he's being graded on producing good offenses now.
edit: a word
Seems to me you can just compare the four years before Fuente to his first four years, and that should give you a decent idea of the impact he's had so far.
But I'd expect this year and next will tell the actual story.
Not sure how VT's defense pitching a shut out in an ACC game is as pathetic as it gets. Maybe for the offense but not for the team as a whole. That's why he's raising his arms... Playing or coaching in a defensive struggle is as intense as it gets for a human. How about a pic of Fuente celebrating that we beat Furman on a deep cut rulebook technicality.
Was Wake Forest.
And we lost that game, so it wasn't a shut out.
We were celebrating that they missed a field goal at the end of regulation.
It was pathetic, given where we had been as a team. It was a marker, of sorts.
And though I can't prove it at this point in time, I think VT is a better team now than it was then. I hope so, anyway.
We beat a team that same season that won a national championship in dominant fashion.
How do you think last year's team would have done against LSU if we met in 2019?
I understand the concept of defensive struggle, but Wake Forest wasn't LSU. That game wasn't a tale of two titans playing conservatively.
Here's just the first paragraph of the first random article that came up when I googled it:
Here's ESPN's take:
I remember how that game was talked about.
Back to the question I asked. How do you think our 2019 team would have fared if they played 2019 LSU?
Is this your painting?
How did our 2016 team do against the eventual national champs, the same national champs that shut out Ohio State that year. This year, against LSU, probably wouldn't have done great, but we did lose by 1 point to an 11-2 Notre Dame team with our third string QB, so who knows?
I have to agree it's not nearly as cut and dry as it seems. I believe 2019 LSU was a far better team than 2014 OSU. I don't know what metrics are available to measure this but I think LSU could make an argument as being one of the best college teams ever.
In 2014, we were at our absolute best for the Ohio State game but we went on to have some pretty bad losses (home loss to mediocre ECU, blowout home loss to mediocre Miami, and embarrassing road loss to Wake). Meanwhile that Ohio State team improved by leaps and bounds over the rest of the season and had another QB under center when they won it all. Essentially it worked out so that our best coincided with their worst (and the game took a toll on our team for the rest of the year).
Now if we had played LSU early in the season last year, I think most have to agree it would have been a massacre because we were at our worse in the first four games of 2019. However, we improved a great deal after our QB change and easily beat a solid Wake team and blanked Pitt and GT. I don't think it's likely we beat LSU or stay within 1 score- frankly their offense might have done terrible things to our defense because Burrow and those WRs have the ability to neutralize Bud's high pressure, high risk scheme- but I don't think 2019 VT as its best was far from 2014 VT at its best either.
No one is arguing that it wasn't pathetic lol. The discussion isn't about which is pathetic and which is not pathetic.
I have always viewed Frank's response differently. I think he was thinking along the lines, "We have played about as bad of a game as we possibly could have BUT we still have a chance to win it! Let's go, Hokies!"
Sadly we did not win it. My brother, Tech aerospace engineering major, lives in the Winston-Salem area. He and I took our now-96 year old mother to her first college football game. As a WWII war-bride from England, she never developed any love for American football. As well you might imagine, this ugly UGLY game did not change her mind.
I can't knock Beamer for that. He was a competitor through and through.
Just made for an unfortunate meme. A football school celebrating a missed field goal that ensured a 0-0 tie with Wake Forest at the end of regulation was a sign that the program had slipped a bit. Like jackals eating a Lion.
What about JMU 21 VT 16? That has to make the list....
That was a terrible moment, but I also knew we had too much talent not to turn it around. The sting of that loss (for me) was actually less than the sting of the Boise loss the week before it. 2010 was Tyrod's last shot at a National Championship and the dream was over after game one. I was pretty numb after the Boise loss, but winning 11 straight games and an ACC Championship helped me move on from that one quickly.
After we lost to ODU we proceeded to have four more blowout losses to ND, Georgia Tech, Pitt, and Miami. The sting never went away and really just got worse.
And all three of these are when the opponent scored a lot of points on us. If you're saying Fuente is the problem, and complaining about how many yards Pitt had against us, that would mean Fuente should have taken control of the defense from Bud Foster. If you're complaining about blowouts, I seriously don't understand how you can blame getting blown out on Fuente. If you're going to blame him, it can ONLY be for scoring less points. That means that his offense would have had to score 46 or more against Duke, 53 or more against Pitt, and 50 against ODU. The only one of those that seems even remotely reasonable to expect is ODU, but again, there is also no reason to say that we shouldn't have allowed a lot less points on us. If you're going to blame him for the failings of defense, you should have been at the games, yelling "Take Foster out, I want to win."
Why does Beamer get dinged for the offense sucking, but it isn't Fuente's fault if the defense isn't up to snuff? Coordinators are coordinators and head coaches are head coaches. Compare apples to apples. Head coaches coach an entire team, so the entire team is their responsibility. If any one unit underperforms, it falls on them to try to fix it.
If you want to say that Fuente's forte is offense, then compare the rankings his VT offenses to the output of Beamer's special teams units.
So you're saying that either coach should have had a lot of influence over the defense? That they should have had their hands all up in Bud's business? When you have an incredibly talented coordinator who's really good at their job, how much SHOULD a head coach meddle in things? And rankings are to some point subjective. If the same offense plays 10 very good defenses, their stats and therefore rankings aren't going to be great, similar to how if the same offense played 10 really bad defenses, their stats are going to be better and therefore their rankings will be better. A Fuente offense put up 35 points on the National Championship Clemson team that shut out a Championship playoff Ohio State team. Yes, a Beamer offense beat a National Championship Ohio State team, but no Fuente offense has been held scoreless during regulation against any team, no matter how good or bad - compare that to the 0 points we put up against a woeful, amazingly bad 3-9 Wake team under Beamer, who then proceeded to cheer about it at the end of regulation. And Fuente replaced the QB who only scored 10 against Duke. How many times did Beamer change out QB's when there wasn't an injury?
I think you're confusing my discussion with Vtkey further down.
We're talking about whether we are in a better spot heading into 2020 as a program than we were when we handed Fuente the reins in 2015 heading into the 2016 season.
Those three losses I posted about happened in the last two years, they are immensely relevant to my perspective of where the team is at today in comparison to when Fuente took over. Bud Foster holds his share of blame for poor defensive performances in those blowout losses. The offense didn't do their job in those three games either, so there is a share of blame allocated on the OC as well. Additionally, the talent on both sides of the ball has blame distributed across all the coaches including Fuente, who like most head coaches has final say on how the scholarship numbers will be distributed in terms of roster management during the two classes preceding 2018.
Fuente was in charge of the ship during our worst season in my lifetime by a substantial margin, and last season, where all three of those games I listed came from. He was not solely to blame, and I never said he was, but when discussing where the program is as a whole he is the head coach, he is the man leading the charge, steering the ship, etc. The primary blame is always going to point back to the head man.
There was a horrendous GT game too
It bothers me that Elmo is the worst character on Sesame Street but he's the star. Kids love his ass though.
This thread showed up in my Chrome "Articles for You" looking like this
lol, it started showing up on mine last night.
South park made it so I'll never buy an elmo again years ago.
2 and a half year old here.
Its basically been Disney+ every day during work hours since the quarantine began. We try to keep it on educational shows like Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood, and Sesame Street, though we do turn on the movies when we just need her to STFU.
No Elmo for my 2-year-old, just Blippi! May God have mercy on my soul!
Yup. Glad to be done with this guy too.
Goofy ass wahoo color wearin....
We finally got the two youngest (3 and just turned 5) off of him. But now the 5 year watches JoJo Siwa on Disney+. And they both watch Ryan's Toy reviews and Tik Tack toy family.
My 5 year old has gotten into older shows, like Sonic, Bakugan, Pokémon, and other similar type shows. It's been a pain, because our 3 year old wants to watch Daniel Tiger and other shows like that, and the older calls them baby shows. Irony, when those shows are on, my oldest will still watch them.
We have been trying to go to Sesame Place before they fall out of that category. And while they like Sesame Street and Elmo to some degree, they never went crazy about them. We have even gotten rid of most of the Elmo toys.
Biggest thing they get crazy about right now though is Legos. May partially be because we went to Lego Land in Cali, and I'm sure we will be going to the new one in NY when it opens and things get back to normal.
I block Ryan and all those exploited kids when I can but my 3.5 year old keeps finding new ones. Guess they are everywhere
I can hear his laugh just looking at that picture. My 3 year old is obsessed with him. Blippi is his role model and everything I do is compared to Blippi.
Okay, am I the only one who is creep-out by this guy? My daughter loves some of his videos on Youtube Kids.
Joe, I completely feel your pain fellow Hokie. My daughter is near three and its PJ Masks and Puppy Dog Pals almost non-stop since COVID-19. Dude, I can hear the theme songs in my head as I type this response. Good luck to you!
I cannot stress this enough, whatever you do, avoid Beyblade at all costs. That has brainwashed my oldest.
my son got into Beyblade from school. He had to have the toy. He has watched it a few times, but isn't as hyped as he used to be. Mainly because he struggles using the toy.
He likes Bakugan and Pokemon too. But didn't know how to play those either. But they always top his list.
Hold up, Beyblades are still a thing? I played with that like 15 years ago. Incredible.
Also, since we are on the subject as I read this thread, whomever decided to make the Humpty-Dumpty song into an animated cartoon music video needs a good talking to, or maybe throttling. My kid keeps singing "Humpty Dumpty back together again" and I have to constantly remind her that its "Couldnt put Humpty Dumpty back together again." I admit that its getting to me, mostly because my daughter loves to climb stuff and I'm worried she will emulate Humpty Dumpty thinking I can put her back together again.
As a Dad who lived through Big Bird, Barney (I love you, you love me) and Power Rangers, I'm here to tell you that time with your children will go so fast (my youngest is 28) that you will long for those days. Cherish every minute.
With my daughter, it was Strawberry Shortcake and Care Bears. When she was an infant, she loved Disney's Robin Hood, the animated version.
Never forgot when a pastor said that he was convinced that Barney was the Antichrist because he had 5 girls. 😂
I was a fan of The Power Rangers until the season they introduced Power Rangers Zeo I stopped watching it. Grew up on GI Joe's, TGIF, and Saturday morning cartoon.
This is good advice and perspective. Having the kids at home was rough, but I will look back at this time very fondly. It's quality time with them I would have never gotten otherwise. 🍻
La la la...Elmo's song. He wrote the music. He wrote the words! That's Elmo's song.
Now you Joe!
Yes
Then. We still had the best D Coordinator in the country. No telling what we're going to get with JHam.
Third Panel
In terms of where we're at for this upcoming season vs then, I'd say most definitely.
Long term? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Man those last beamer years were hard. Although, I think the advantage of those years was that our national success was more recent. We have won more games with Fuente than the end of Beamer, but not enough to stop the shrinking national profile.
As someone who was a student from 2011 to 2016, those last Beamer years were a bummer. Only bright side is we never lost to UVA while I was a student.
I was a student for the 2009-2014 seasons and got to watch the depressing slide.... I had grown accustomed to success watching through the early 2000s and then had to watch the failure live. Never left early from a loss though...
Not to pull the ultimate one up but I was there 2012-2016. That means I was there right after we stopped winning the division yearly to having multiple 6 win season only to leave right before Fuente arrives to win the Coastal again...oh and don't even get me started on bball during that period.
Hey, I was there 1987-1991 as a student + 1992 when I worked for a year as a lab tech before going off to grad school. Our records ranged from 2-9 to a high of 6-4-1 for a total 22-32-1. And that was playing as an independent or in the Big East. Granted, I really had no interest in VT football when I was a student, but still. 2012-2016 was a golden age vs. my time. I think we were 1-4 against UVa too. Might have been 2-3. Have to check.
Ok you take the cake. Though, you have to remember, I was a spoiled VT fan coming into undergrad. I expected us to be winning ACC championships. So my expectations vs reality was astoundingly off base.
Yeah, my expectations were very low.
Apart from the 'no interest in football while being a student' part, I concur. I was a student from 1989-1993. I finished on a previously unheard of high note: The Independence Bowl. But that also includes seasons where a season's success was determined by upsetting a rival. I was at 1990 #17 UVA-VT game. VT upset UVA 38-13 and the crowd was so hyped that the goal post came down after the game. You'd have though we won a Natty. That season was 6-5.
I was also, after thunderstorm delays, sitting in fold up bleachers in the end zone in 1991, in Morgantown, when VT held off WVU on the 1 yard line as time ran out to clinch an upset. This also happens to be my favorite Hokie Football memory. Our record that year: 5-6 AND UVA beat VT 38-0.
And then we went the next year 2-8-1, and fans were shouting for Beamer to be gone. But in an uncharacteristically gutsy move, the AD kept CFB on for one more year, and the Bowl streak began.
Even in 2012-2016, there was hope for a return to glory. We had 2014 OSU, and a promising rematch until Brewer was injured. In 1989-1992, glory wasn't a consideration. We were simply hoping for any upset we could get. But VT has always at its best (at least for the 30 years I've been a fan) when we had a chip on our shoulder. And a lunch pail in our hand.
Disagree (or elaborate anyway) on two points:
I was student from 83-88- the "three yards and a cloud of dust" era -'bill dooley).
1983 VT-UVA game at UVA- we capped a 9-2 year by destroying the Cavs 48-0 in the '83 Squeaker" and tore down the goal posts ON THE ROAD!(and didn't get invite to a bow game 'cause a 8-3 UNC team that lost to UVA the week before we destroyed the Cavs stole the Peach Bowl bid we should have received UNCheat has been around a long time!)
Also the Independence bowl win -while very important to mark the turnaround of the team and beginning of the golden era of Hokie football was NOT the " previously unheard of high note"- That honor belongs with the 1986 team's season which finished a 10-1-1 season with VT's first EVER bowl win in the 1986 Peach Bowl- a game won 25-24 over NC State on a walkoff last second field goal on NYE in Atlanta that I was able to attend!
While I didn't miss ANY home games as a student, Typical attendance in a then 50k seat Lane Stadium was 35-40k except when WVU or UVA came to town(guaranteed sellouts). One favorite memory was during a blowout win on a warm Saturday when the student side built a chain put of stadium cups from the very first row next to the field all the way to the top(row 5P) of the stadium (remember each cup in the stack of cups only added about one inch to the length of the chain). They held the snaking chain of cups for about ten seconds then tossed it in the air. Nothing like bored engineers!
Useless trivia - I have the Homecoming game football signed by the team from that year. At least, I think it was from that year.
Not to one up you, but I was there from 2004-2008 and it was amazing (minus the bowl losses). Wait...did I do that right?
Pandemic aside, I have higher hopes coming into the 2020 season than I did for the 2016 season. However, my hopes for 2020 in 2016 were significantly higher than my hopes for 2024 in 2020. Another way to say it is that my one year outlook is higher now than it was then, my four year outlook now is significantly more pessimistic now than it was then.
it's hard to say that has been elevated as opposed to treading water, so I think the answer is "no, we're not in a better spot now". But i also don't think that we're appreciably worse either. End of CFB's tenure was rough
I think the multi-year outlook perspective is one i share with you... the combined last 8 years have done some significant tempering of my personal expectations, and the last 4 years hasn't done enough to make me more (or less) optimistic. I need to see a couple years like 2009, back to back, before I'm feeling more confident in the direction. I'm cautiously optimistic about this year, but I'm also not going to stress about it.
I agree and have high hopes and expectations for this season. Every game besides Ped State should be winnable. The real bummer is that knowing last years recruiting class is just looming over us. We could win the national championship this year, and still take a significant blow from that class
Eh, if we won an NC the recruiting bump we got would be so signs that we could cover up the one bad class pretty easily, especially with the portal. 2-3 in a row is a real problem though.
My rose colored glasses say now. We are updating facilities, the rookies are becoming vets. Hamilton is an unknown, but i have a good feeling about it. I love the talent on offense. But then I remember Cornelson didnt attack UVAs secondary and I want to throw up. Who knows. I think the next 2 years will be everything. If we can get 2 10 win seasons in a row Ill be a lot more comfortable.
Every time I want to get really excited about this season, I think about the alleged Jerry Kill incident that stemmed from Corn's complete inability to gameplan and temper my expectations.
Agree. That was anything but confidence-inducing.
That game tape will get after ya
Did anyone confirm it was Corn he was talking about?
I'm completely out of the loop on the Kill incident, can anyone explain?
Basically that Kill almost got into a fisticuffs with Cornelsen because Kill was critical of the offensive staff inability to break down films and Cornelsen didn't take too kindly to it. Word was Vice had to restrain Kill.
Film review session - Kill realizes Cornelsen can't break down film for shit - argument gets heated, Fuente(?) decides they need to break for dinner, Kill is too angry to go to dinner with them so has a few drinks - upon the return they almost come to blows.
Kill also thought Zohn wasn't a quality coach. He apparently advised Fuente to get rid of Zohn and Cornelsen.
Lmao, holy smokes this is true? Jeez, that sounds...damning honestly. Maybe I'm naive about coaching, but I assume getting this heated doesn't happen regularly for good teams.
I think we're roughly in the same place as the 2012-15 era and I think that's a disappointment to a lot of people here.
Fuente was brought in with expectations of modernizing the offense and creating a spark on the recruiting trail. He was supposed to complement Bud Foster and the "core competencies" of our program.
2016 created a false sense of hope as we were a experience-laden team with an effective stop-gap QB. 2017 had a typical Bud Foster defense that covered the deficiencies of underwhelming QB play (once we got into ACC play).
A lot of what happened in 2018 shouldn't fall specifically on Fuente. Guys like Alexander and Mook leaving the program were out of his control. JJ breaking his leg was out of his control. Bud Foster almost dying was out of his control. "Firing" Galen Scott (I think he left technically on his own accord, but semantics) was the right move. If the rumors were correct about Trevon Hill, getting rid of him was the right move. Purging the vestiges of the Beamer-era recruits who were actively hurting the program (if the SI article was true) was the right move.
Maybe some of 2018 could be blamed on Fuente. Maybe he should have figured out Scott wasn't a great person. Maybe he should of had better options at QB after JJ went down. Maybe he should have just gotten rid of Trevon HIll from the get-go. But at the end of the day, I think he did the best he could given the hand he was dealt. I don't understand how people on TKP can ultimately be upset with Fuente that season, it's not really fair to pin all of the blame on him.
I feel like the wheels were put back on the track post-Duke. Yeah we lost to UVa and the bowl game and that sucks. The recruiting class that came in was underwhelming per 247 but I'm reserving judgment until those guys actually get on the field.
Fuente's staff has done a better job of controlling their narrative this offseason which I think is much needed.
I'm excited to see this 2020 team play because I think we have a real shot getting back to our standard. I love how our defensive staff was put together.
If we suck next year, it will 100% be on Fuente and I think real changes need to be made. But I'm optimistic, maybe more than most TKP'ers.
The having a better backup to Josh Jackson in 2018 would have been a tall task. We rarely have ever had QB depth. I really cant recall two many times where we could play 2-3 QBs like we can now. When was the FSU game where Holt played 2007?
Fuente got a JUCO in 2016, Hendon in 2017 and then in 2018 when JJ, a incumbent sophomore goes down you really didnt have anyone. I dont see a JUCO coming to play backup to JJ, and 2016 was very late in the game to recruit a QB. It was a bad position to be in overall.
If we had gotten Jarrett Stidham instead of Ryan Willis in 2017, I think we're in a much different place. Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and apparently it's difficult to convince QBs to choose Virginia Tech over Auburn.
It's clear now that JJ wasn't an ACC-caliber QB (or apparently a B10-caliber QB). Maybe if we had the "You're going to be the starter from Day 1" pitch in our back pocket, we could have convinced a transfer to come in 2018. But I think trying to convince a guy like Shea Patterson to choose VT over Michigan or Burrow to choose VT over OSU is a tall task.
If we could have gotten 3 top transfers/recruits to choose VT over OSU, Auburn, and Michigan then we wouldnt need this thread.
The point about the 2018 QB problem needs to be highlighted, especially after the new information brought to light by the SI article on Jerod Evans. Evans came in and was clear that 2016 was going to be the only year he was at Tech, and he claimed to be completely transparent with Fuente. That should have been a point of emphasis to put additional focus on QB recruiting during that and the 2017 recruiting cycle. Had that been addressed then maybe we're in a more salvageable situation in 2018. However, I dont think that necessarily translates in to more wins - our D was atrocious by our standards, and a couple extra TDs per game and more time on the field likely results in another win or two, but not a completely different outcome for the season.
I'd argue that Fuente did prioritize recruiting as we got Hooker and then Patterson the next year. Hindsight we needed another stop gap, but looking at our QB room now, getting talented QBs was a priority.
I'm not really sure how Fuente could have setup the QB room any better for the 2018 season. Really its a question of whether he could have brought in a better transfer/juco than AJ Bush as part of the 2017 class. Jerod announced he was going pro January 2 that leaves Fuente with only a few weeks to get a QB in before spring classes. While Jerod may have told Fuente he is one and done, Fuente is still left in a bind with 2 real options: Recruit the Juco/transfer circuit hard essentially pushing Jerod out the door or try to recruit one more quietly and convince a potential recruit that this QB every analyst is saying isn't NFL ready is going to go pro early. Neither option works that well. Keep in mind this is also pre transfer portal, so finding a transfer QB was probably more difficult. Throw in also losing 2 of the top receivers early as well. Getting a top flight JUCO or transfer was probably no easy task.
Fast forward to the end of the 2017 season. At a high level JJ had a decent RS Freshman season and by all accounts looked poised to retain the job. Good luck convincing a top tier transfer that is looking for immediate playing time to get on board.
Lots of things to criticize Fuente about. But I don't think the management of the QB room for the 2016-2018 seasons was one of them.
It's too nuanced to say one way or another without knowing what components are most valued by each person. I think you can comfortably say we were more talented at the end of the 2015 season, but we also know that between the 2017 and 2018 NFL Drafts we had 9 VT players drafted including two first rounders. We don't know exactly how many guys on our current roster will be drafted in the next two drafts, but I would say the safe bet would be <9.
Coaching staff? post 2015 Bud Foster produces a very good (22nd) and elite (9th) defense over the next two years and our current DC is very young and short on experience. This is an easy choice to say Bud, but an important component of judging "where we're at as a program," I'm assuming, involves taking into account a long term projection. Right now I think with TnT, JHam, and Fuente we have more potential for long term success as they are simply all younger, and TnT has brought the promise of a revamped defense that we are currently seeing some important DL recruiting success. I also think our QB room looks way better for 2020, than our QB room ever looked in the last four/five years of Beamer. It was Logan, drop off a cliff to Juju, followed by Michael Brewer, backed up by a high school option QB, who actually did quite well when he had to play, but we never had real depth at the position, never a legit third option. Hendon Hooker, Quincy Patterson, and Braxton Burmeister is a deep and talented QB room. However, with modern QB rooms that depth and talent and find itself on other campuses rather quickly, but heading into the 2020 season we have probably our deepest collection of legitimate options we've had at QB in a long time.
So in the one year outlook, I would say I feel pretty similar about both, perhaps even with an edge to 2020 given that we have several viable QB options, a winnable schedule, not as talented in an NFL sense or as good of a DL as heading into 2016, but we have a ton of returning starters on defense like we did heading into 2016, and with a big advantage to 2020 we have an extremely promising and deep OL. We will have 6-9 viable starting OL to rotate depending on your opinion of our fringe guys. I think at least 6 is inarguable. So I would maybe give the edge to 2020 in a one year outlook.
Where I am much less confident is the 2, 3, and 4 year outlook. I can look at 2015, and with the benefit of hindsight know that we had a shit ton of talent in 2016 and 2017, but that it fell off a cliff in 2018. For our current situation given last year and this year's recruiting class I have reason to project that our DL will be in strong place in 2-3, maybe 4 seasons, but there are few other spots that are easy to project with a ton of hope without the industrial strength UV proof O&M ski goggles firmly in place.
Edit: Here are some numerical comparisons for the four years preceding Fuente and the four years of Fuente for comparison. Numbers are taken from 247 composite team rankings for recruiting and SP+ for on-field stats.
2012: Recruiting rank: 21st -- Overall 31st, Offense 63rd, Defense 8th
2013: Recruiting rank: 28th -- Overall 26th, Offense 77th, Defense 1st
2014: Recruiting rank: 29th -- Overall 45th, Offense 86th, Defense 11th
2015: Recruiting rank: 42nd -- Overall 31st, Offense 57th, Defense 18th
2016: Recruiting rank: 26th -- Overall 22nd, Offense 39th, Defense 21st
2017: Recruiting rank: 24th -- Overall 21st, Offense 77th, Defense 9th
2018: Recruiting rank: 26th -- Overall 55th, Offense 41st, Defense 77th
2019: Recruiting rank: 75th -- Overall 38th, Offense 56th, Defense 39th
*Each recruiting class ranking is from the class that corresponds to that season so 2012 is based on the 2013 class rank, etc. because that is the class that was being recruited by that staff during the season and signed that dec/february after the season.
I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with around 9 guys selected in the next 2 drafts. I think Farley, Reed, and Turner are near locks, then you have another tier of guys like Waller, Mitchell, Darrisaw, and Hoffman that I would say are probably getting drafted. From there, I could see a few guys from the following group get selected as well (Deablo, Conner, Ashby, another lineman or two on either side of the ball).
Hooker as well, especially if he can put together a full season like he had last year.
Completely forgot about Reed. Also Dax could play into draft consideration.
Especially if Tisdale and Barno start playing really well
I see the path for sure, but in betting terms I was saying I think the under is the safer bet.
For example, I think Ashby is a great college ILB, and I think he was robbed of first team All-ACC last year, but when Clemson has guys like Kendall Joseph, Ben Boulware, and Tre Lamar all go undrafted at ILB it doesn't make me super confident someone like Ashby will get an NFL shot via draft. Think he will be a UDFA candidate. The NFL ILB profile has changed to tall, long, fast, lighter, and can cover.
EDIT* Basically the same as above. This is what I get for doing work mid-drafting a TKP comment.
I think it really depends on how you look at it.
National perception and branded elements (ie Beamer Ball) was still better then.
Projection I would say is better now. We are trending in the right direction, though it may not feel like it. Many forget that a lot of coaches come in and hit rock bottom before changing things around. Fuente pulled something off, then hit rock bottom, and right now that has a lot of bad tastes in peoples mouths. But overall, it's starting to feel like his team and he is working hard on changing the culture and could bring us back into national relevance.
I think a lot of the sports world has been wondering if we are going to be back, and seems though some are being cautiously optimistic, they are projecting a good year for 2020. If we can get back into the 9 to 10 wins, win the coastal and win a solid bowl game, then some of those other things will start to fall into place.
For example, lot of people are harping on recruiting right now. If the season goes as projected, there will be some excitement going into ESD & NSD. Seems we are cracking the top 25 already, and some are thinking that we could have a top 20 matchup for Penn State. If we pull that off and don't have any Chokie moments, it could be a crazy year.
I agree with your projection take. If VT football was a bargain stock right now, I'd buy a good chunk of shares. (on another note, if we were talking basketball, I'd be all in.)
But... current perception is that's its a bargain stock and not a blue chip.
I have friends of friend who built a College Football Stock Exchange app about 10 years ago. It was a really cool concept, but it never caught on. I've always thought that there's a really good opportunity for Vegas/Draft Kings/whoever to make a CFB stock market.
I think that's a great idea. It would give the sports radio guys loads of material at the very least.
This is exists for the Premier League. Makes even more sense there because their market has players being actively bought and sold, thus giving them active and realistic monetary valuations to work from.
It was done 20 years ago. It was called Wall Street Sports although due to gambling regulations it was just for fun and included all major sports plus golf and tennis (I think).
Recruiting is legitimately bad, currently on pace for back to back finishes in the Power 5 bottom quartile when you sort by average rating per player in the 247 composite. And over the last 2 years we've been curbstomped at home by Duke, lost the Commonwealth Cup to Virginia, and lost on the road at Old Dominion.
The last few years of Beamer were bad, where we were regularly losing to ECU, but current state is pretty bad as well. Right now, it looks like the Fuente hire was a big swing and a miss by our Athletic Department.
And I will say this... Right now, things may look like they are ok. I think this has to do with being better in some key positions, but I do worry about our depth, and think people might be placing too much of an emphasis on how we played in a very bad Coastal last year. That Duke game was completely inexcusable, and while we did play well in the weeks after, a lot of that had to do with a defense coming together to finish the career of a legitimate defensive coaching legend. And then we looked like a mess against Virginia and Kentucky to close out the year, looking like a team whose right foot didn't know what the left foot was doing.
I'm most worried about our recruiting. No sugarcoating it, the current state of Virginia Tech recruiting is bad, unacceptably bad for a team of our stature. And regardless of how you think 2020 and 2021 might go, I'm very worried about what we are going to look like in 2022 and beyond, because right now we simply aren't bringing in the talent to even be a middling contender in this sport. We must improve here, and we must improve very soon or things will get ugly down the line.
I think its time we view the whole recruiting spectrum. Yes, you are correct when talking a bout recruiting high school players we have been abysmal and there is no argument there. However, we have done excellent recruiting the transfer portal. We have landed some good immediate needs in Reed @ DE, the two transfer running backs and a JUCO RB, Brock Hoffman, the JUCO DEs, and it appears we are about to land a solid CB from Iowa. So yes our HS recuiting leaves a lot to be desired but lets give credit where credit is due.
And i think we needed the Duke loss in order for the dramatic turnaround to have happened last year. If HH starts we beat ND by two scores.
However, i want to win a Natty so as soon as i win the powerball VT football will receive however much a Natty costs from me in donations.
Agree that we've used the transfer portal well, and Fuente deserves credit for that, but ultimately, transfers are used as a means to fix what you failed to do right in the first place - aka missed targets, missed evals, failed development, character issues, and injuries (obviously not Fuente's fault).
I think transfers can supplement good high school recruiting, but I don't think it can replace it in a sustainable way. But, I acknowledge that we don't yet have enough data to prove my point; Fuente use the transfer market like Bill Snyder used JUCOs. We'll see.
I think that's an outdated way to look at the transfer portal. With how common transferring has now become in college sports, I think the gap in importance of how you recruit and how you handle the portal has closed tremendously.
How close do you think that gap is? I think it might've moved from 95%/5% recruiting/transfer to an 85%/15% ratio? Maybe 80/20 if you're really good at it? I'd be curious to see what % of players who are 'significant contributors' are transfers. Would be telling indeed.
Kind of like you said, it's a little to early to put a number to it, but this year alone we'll have at least 5 transfer/juco players that we didn't originally recruit being starters or at least major contributors. Brock, Herbert, Blackshear, Reed, and Barno. And that's just assuming Burmeister and the receiver from Kansas don't contribute.
I think it's just going to be a major part of college football moving forward and if recruiting blue chip players is going to be a struggle for us, then having a very effective system of landing high end transfers/juco players to offset that is something i'm definitely open to having. It's definitely something i want to be ahead of the times on than behind the times like we are in recruiting high school athletes also.
I think I mostly agree, but I'm just not sure how sustainable it is. Let's say your average transfer has 2 years of eligibility. Can you replace 5 contributors through the transfer portal each year? Maybe you can. Maybe this is inefficiency in recruiting that Fuente can exploit better than other coaches. I hope so.
Fingers crossed on Blackshear's waiver. And Quincy Roche sure would have been nice too
Crawford as well.
Perhaps this is just wishful thinking, but Im hoping part of the reason for our success in the transfer portal right now is a reflection of something genuine about our program and staff. A kid wants to go where the lights shine brightest and the crowd is the biggest, but after a couple of years of seeing how the sausage is made, perhaps some other factors like relationship to coaching staff, team feel, campus life, etc. become a little more important. Not to say that transfers don't still want to play on the biggest stage, I just think our strong suits and the message of "this is home", might have a little bit higher weight than they did right out of high school, and maybe that tips the balance in our favor enough times that it has a long term positive impact on the product on the field.
I think you're right that players are definitely jaded after being in a system for a year or so, and able to cut through the bullshit. That said, I imagine when they transfer they're looking more system fit/opportunity than campus life/relationships. But I could be wrong.
If we're going to credit Fuente for the transfer portal, then we also have to criticize him for the exodus we've seen out of our program through that same portal since he got here.
Yes and no. Trevon Hill, Damon Hazelton, and T-Mac are the only guys I can think of who actually contributed (or stand to contribute in Hazelton's case) at the next stop. I think an argument could be made that the others were addition by subtraction, passed over by younger talent, etc. Willing to listen on the topic obviously, but that is my general sense, that the transfer portal has been a net positive for us.
Totally agree. I think this echos Chump's comment:
I think it is far closer to a swing and double. It has not been the home run hit that his first year hit indicated it might have been. However, it has not been anywhere near the epic fail coaching hires that have happened at other schools.
If we're going to be nuanced here, and what are we on this site if not nuanced, then I would say its more like a routine single. A double at least gets you in a position for the next guy to drive in a run. I'm not sure we're in that kind of position right now, and I'm not sure we'll be there by the time this regime is over. Its not a swing and a miss, we wouldn't be completely starting over from scratch, so I would agree with you there. I say its a routine single, because it basically just keeps the game moving, and the guys coming later still have a lot of work to do in order to get a run home.
With that said, if our recruiting doesn't make significant improvements from its current trajectory, this very well could tilt toward swing and a miss territory in a hurry.
I tend to agree. Fuente is fine. I don't think he's the type to win a championship here, but he does have a lot of flaws in terms of roster management. We have like 10 scholarship running backs for next year, but seemingly have zero defensive line depth. The QB recruiting and play have both been iffy in my eyes, but maybe thats just a run of rotten luck. I feel as though he's a guy who is going to consistently win you 6-9 games (nice) but not really get you over the hump. And maybe this thread is a serious conversation we need to have irrespective of Fuente, do our goals and demands as fans match up with what the program as currently structured can accomplish? And what needs to change to get us over the hump if not?
I don't know why you would think qb recruiting has been bad?
I think we were sinking in recruiting regardless if we got Fuente or not. Save if we all of a sudden got Dabo or Saban, there's no way anyone else was going to get us to a level where we'd get 5-stars and 4-stars all the time.
I think there was a lot working against Beamer at the end, especially in recruiting. His age and inevitable pending retirement, combined with the downturn in on-field product were not positive. I don't know if it's been confirmed, but there's at least been chatter that the last couple of Beamer classes had guys who normally wouldn't have been brought in, but we needed bodies. And it was those guys that led to the 2018 problems.
I'd say that we're probably in a similar spot as we were then, but for different reasons. But I think it's easier to overcome negative factors right now.
I say now. Our next two years we should be really good.
I think VT is in a better position than it was in 2015. I think every position group on offense is improved over 2015. LBs are also much improved. More depth at DL, but lower peak (missing Tim and Ricky for sure). Secondary might have taken a step back, but they could be really good this year.
BUT I also think our competition (both geographic recruiting rivals AND division rivals) are also in a better position, and have improved their position by a greater degree than we have:
EDIT: man, so many people had way better answers than I did. Fully agree with Chomp's 4 year outlook vs 1 year outlook, and SevenLayer's comment about bad luck.
Well "position" mean a point of location on a measurable system. In this case, I would say that if our position has worsened in relation to our opponents then our position in general has worsened.
One thing I always think about in this debate is considering the difficulty level of replacing not one, but two, HOFer coaches in Frank Beamer and Bud Foster.
The difficulty only increases when you realize Beamer and Bud didn't leave at the same time and the transition was prolonged over a span of 4 years.
The difficulty increases even more knowing that the entire identity of the program was aligned to the style of play they built through almost 30 years of 'Beamerball' and the 'Lunchpail D'.
The difficulty increases even more knowing that VT as a school basically aligned itself with the culture and brand established by Beamer and Bud, especially among the donor base.
All of that makes me think about how hard it would be for any willing and successful coach to enter into the tiny bubble that is VT and build their own version of a football program. For me, 2020 is the first real 'clean' season for Fuente to be fully judged on his version of the program. If he succeeds, great. If he fails, goodbye.
This is a great point. This is the first year for Fuente that the team is made up completely of his guys-his staff, his players. That doesn't mean we can't evaluate his performance of the past few years but 2020 will be very revealing.
Fuente himself tried to leave for Baylor. That really helps in building that program, eh. No more excuses.
Honestly, no. Fuente started hot but momentum has been trending down ever since. The loss to Miami and then Georgia Tech in 2017 led French to declare the "honeymoon is over" and in retrospect that statement has proven to be accurate IMO. It's been a bumpy ride ever since.
The offense was so bad in 2017, the honeymoon was hella over by the end of that season.
I still remember people trying to say we lost to Oklahoma State because of the defense. We gave up 30 points, which was the 2nd fewest points they were held to all season behind Texas.
We scored 21 points, the only P5 teams who scored less against them were Texas (7-6), Baylor (1-11), and Kansas (1-11). Pitt (5-7) tied us at 21.
Four teams scored 40+ on them, WVU scored 39, and Texas Tech scored 34. If we had scored like any of those 6 other P5 teams did against them we beat them. Instead we were in the above company that was a combined 14-35.
One thing that really irks me is that at any given time we seem to only have one QB who is prepared to run our offense. I mean, its great that we have this stable of QBs but it doesn't do us much good if our backup plan on any given week is to just put in a guy to hand the ball off every play because we only have one guy we trust to even attempt a pass.
This problem is pretty common in VT history. I'd argue that QB depth is the best it's been since Glennon and Tyrod were splitting time.
I bet it's also pretty common in CFB. Can you think of a team that doesn't recruit top 15 or better that doesn't have this issue?
In retrospect there are so many seasons that could have been derailed by QB health issues. There would have been a noticeable drop off from Tyrod to Juju in 2009 and Tyrod to Logan in 2010 for example.
We legit had three different qbs win games for us last year. Maybe none of them looked like world beaters, but you're right, the depth was maybe the best we've ever had.
Basically every year before Fuente got here, except for the Tyrod/Glennon years, and the Marcus Vick/Bryan Randall overlap.
I would argue that really there has been no QB so far in the Fuente era that could execute the full complement of the playbook. Evans perhaps did so the best. Each year there is one or more flaws in the game of our QB1, and we frankly aren't seeing any progression so far in their skill set. Case in point, Hooker was in his 3rd full year of the program last year and had to have a significant pared down passing game once he took the reins. We also saw arguably regression in JJ as 2017 went along and in Willis from his first starts to the end of his tenure. I'm not tremendously sold on this offense being successful long-term.
We had a legendary coach that hung on too long but we could not force to retire because of the legendary part and now have a lower division coach who is not getting it done in the big boy conferences but got a ridiculous extension after one good season so we cannot fire him so seem pretty level to me on that front. Coaching wise Fuente was supposed to be a O genius but really only caught fire with a certain grad transfer QB and has been pretty meh other than that. He also seems to have Beamers loyalty of hanging on too assistants too long which is not helping on O at all. Maybe the new D staff will light some fires and push this team over the edge from mediocre to ok but that is probably too high of an expectation for a first time coordinator. So I guess tbd based on the next few seasons (not like we have a choice unless some Hokie alum wins the lottery and pays the buyout on the coach) but then I am often pessimistic so maybe things will be a little better?
Beamer was 16-16 in conference (29-23 overall) in his last 4 years. Fuente was 20-12 in conference (33-20) his first 4 years.
Fuente benefitted from some of the talent left behind but bringing in Jerod Evans was needed to take best advantage of that. Likewise, Fuente also had to eat the hole in the donut in recruiting caused by Beamer's last year.
I think we are in a little better spot now, but this season will much better inform that assessment.
Beamer left Fuente nine NFL draft picks between his first two seasons, 10 if you count Adonis Alexander supplemental draft selection (would have been regularly drafted in normal circumstances) and another potential draftee in Mook Reynolds if he doesn't have the drug issue.
Fuente had two full recruiting classes (2017 and 2018 classes) to help recover the "holes" from the end of the Beamer era that were left and produced too many duds, loaded up on certain positions like WR, while only taking 1 DT, and other roster management decisions that absolutely were his fault heading into 2018. To say that 2018 was mostly because of Beamer's dud recruiting at the very end is more than unfair with two 20+ recruit classes that were all Fuente right before they played a snap in 2018.
I'm slightly more pessimistic now. In 2016, we had no idea we would have as successful a season as we would end up having, but the truth was that for the last few years of Beamer, the Coastal sucked and even though we did too, we still had a chance at winning the division most seasons.
Now, we are better in the wins column, much worse in recruiting, and UNC is looking like they are going to stake their claim atop the coastal after years of us being unable to plant that flag (2016 is our only appearance since 2011). UVA coming up a bit more than usual is only going to make the Coastal, the weakest division in P5, even more difficult, and with the current state of our recruiting, that leaves me pessimistic.
I'm curious for input that for anybody that might be more knowledgeable about this subject:
Prep schools. We had two in Virginia making this a unique geographical resource to us. I thought Hargrave got rid of their football program, but there's a Varsity football team listed on their website.
I ask because under Beamer we typically embraced the relative dearth of Junior College programs in our vicinity, but we used to rely heavily on Prep schools.
It seems like the number of Prep school players signing with FBS programs has dropped off substantially in the past decade. 247's Prep school player rankings used to be several times larger than the dozen or so players they evaluate lately each year.
Anybody know the story on this?
100% no. Fuente was brought in here to elevate the program, take it over the "top". He had arguably the best DC in college football here to pair with his "high octane" offense. A widely respected AD, a great fan base. He was hired to lift us out of losing to GT and BC and get more than 1 capable QB on the roster- the largest issues with the late Beamer years. What's improved? The offense has improved... to middle of the pack. That's it. Recruiting? in the later years Beamer signed Settle, Edmunds brothers, Stroman, etc- pro players. We are spinning wheels as to where we were. No better.
Fuente's 2020 (75th in the nation) and 2021 (currently 52nd in the nation) recruiting classes are on the way to being worse than those Beamer was pulling in at age 65+ and, apparently, in bad health near the end of his tenure.
The thing is...it's on a delayed fuse. When the classes of 2020 and 2021 have to fill up a two deep you're going to see Virginia Tech football and wonder why it looks like Rutgers wearing maroon and orange. There is no longer a Bud Foster to outsmart other teams with more talent, etc.
I plan on enjoying the upcoming season or two to the fullest because it's going to be ugly soon after. Fuente himself almost certainly has an exit strategy after this season because his career will suffer if he's here for much longer because of our recruiting downturn.
Beamer didn't leave us with a Kansas-tier roster. Justin Fuente likely will. What else is there to say?
"Beamer didn't leave us with a Kansas-tier roster. Justin Fuente likely will. What else is there to say?"
Oh man. This is probably the most distressing thing I have seen on this site in a long time. And you will almost certainly be right unless (1) we have a very good season next year (e.g., 10+ wins and a top 20 finish at the end of the year when all the bowl games have been played) that gets some excitement and positive energy back into the program or (2) there is a major turn-around in this year's recruiting. Both of those things are possible. But if not, things will be real ugly soon.
I have a theory about this and a secondary reason for the sudden shift in focus to Texas this year in recruiting. May be a job opening up down there in the next year or two that he would likely be a top candidate for if he can pull in a pretty good year with this current roster. Just a theory but wouldn't surprise me in the least.
I'm not going to even read any other comments. 0-0 Wake Forest, losing by a field goal in overtime. There is zero anybody can say to convince me we aren't at least a little better now, the only question is how much.
Duke - Football- Came into Lane and did what they wanted and embarassed us all over the field. That's equal to wake if not worse.
This, and the comment above classic DC. Did not disappoint. Never change DC, never change.
It's worse than the Wake game. We lost by 35 at home to Duke. I was in Athens (Greece) and chose not to stay up and watch the game after a full day walking around the city for ~14 hours... I thought VT football was over and Fuente would be fired within the week when I checked the boxscore after I woke up.
The Wake and Duke games are nothing....nothing like losing 35-49 in a glorified high school stadium to a team that, at the time, hadn't even been playing football for 10 years. I'll lose 0-3 to Wake Forest ten times in a row before signing up for another Old Dominion humiliation.
Duke whipped us at home...so what? They're an ACC peer with a nationally respected coach. ODU is...I can't even think about that game in a rational manner so I'll move on.
Also a fair point. Either way, both ODU and Duke happened in the last two seasons under Fuente.
Maybe you and I have different memories of just how bad Wake sucked that year, so I went and looked it up. Wake was 3-9, with wins against Gardner Webb, Army, and us. Glorified high school team? That's EXACTLY what Wake was then.
And again, the offense (Fuente) scored 35. The defense (Foster) is who gave up 49 points. Maybe the offense should have scored more, but the defense allowing 49? Yeah, it's embarrassing , but I'd put that more on Foster than Fuente.
It's a fair point about the defense.
The offense, however, shouldn't have just scored "more". Walk-ons should have been playing because Fuente's high powered offense put up 35 at halftime. Not 35 at the end of the game with starters playing.
Even in a worst case scenario the game should have been 63-49 VT and we all harmlessly wonder if the defense drank too much the night before or something.
That's a fair point, but my point is comparing that to us not scoring a single point in regulation against a Wake Forest Team who only beat Gardner-Webb and Army (who was 4-8 that year). We got blanked in regulation by a team THAT bad.
The offense scored 35, but should have scored more as well.
Marshall, Middle Tennessee State, East Carolina, Liberty, Florida Atlantic.
That is the list of teams who scored more against ODU than we did in 2018.
University of Louisiana, Monroe and Utah State scored more against Wake Forest than we did.
Edit: Gardner-Webb even scored 7 on Wake.
Yeah, 35 seems like a lot, but there are plenty of P5 teams that put up 50-70 points against those types of teams and that's with them letting up in the second half! We managed 35 points by giving it all we had...
My only point is that 35 is better than us giving it all for an entire game and failing to even score a field goal against a team that was 3-9, with their other 2 wins being 4-8 Gardner-Webb (who scored 7 on them) and Army (also 4-8). University of Louisiana, Monroe, another 4-8 team, scored 10 on them.
This conversation is ultimately very subjective.
In my opinion, as embarrassing as the Wake Forest game was, both for going to OT 0-0 and for losing to a bad team in Ot, it will never be as bad as getting blown out by 35 at home to Duke, or losing by 14 to Old Dominion who won 3-4 games that season.
You clearly see it differently, but anyway you spin it Wake Forest wasn't a blowout. We were in it until the last snap. The same cannot be said for our 35 point loss, at home, to Duke. Losing by 14 to a bad G5 team is also much more embarrassing for me.
You're talking about embarrassing losses. I'm sticking to the subject - being better off with Fuente than before. I'm not looking purely at the loss, because, yes, the ODU loss was embarrassing. I'm using the context of Fuente being able to score points vs. Beamer scoring points. The inability to score on that Wake Forest team was more embarrassing from an inability to score any points than Fuente not being able to score 60 on ODU. Because that Wake Team was every bit as bad as ODU, but we failed to score any points on them. We couldn't score any points on a REALLY bad team - but two other REALLY bad teams (ULM and GW) were able to score at least a touchdown.
Part of the ODU loss is their ability to put up 49 points. The only team they scored MORE on was VMI (77). But that's on the defense, and, like I said, this is about being better off with Fuente here.
Last I checked, we gave up 0 points against Wake in regulation. That's defensive performance was better than anything we fielded against ODU. At least Wake Forest was losing to ACC teams that year. Who was ODU getting spanked by?
It's not the first time either. Logan Thomas threw more picks in a single game that season and Kendall Fuller had a MVP night, single-handedly keeping VT in the game. Going back a bit further, there were signs that Duke was no longer the pushover they were. Remember that 17 points comeback and we saw J.C. Coleman run out of his mind that afternoon? Both instances were under Beamer as well. I think, in general, fans greatly underestimated Duke because, well, they used to dwell in their mother's basement but gotta give Cutcliffe credit, he knows how to coach and he has a hell of a staff.
I think we have a different idea what getting "whipped" means.
The bottom line is Duke has been able to beat Virginia Tech. To me, it is irrelevant by how close or wide the scoring margin is.
I agree it's not okay to lose to Duke basically ever if VT is going to be at the standard we expect, but that 2013 Duke team was Cutcliffe's best (10-4 finished ranked), and we lost that game is the most bizarre fashion. They had under 200 yards of offense, threw four interceptions, and didn't convert a single third down... and won.
That was not similar to last year where we got whipped on both sides of the ball at home to the tune of a 35 point loss. That Duke team was 5-7.
I will concede you do have a point there.
I hate to break it to you, but we are no longer near that level of a program anymore to consider any lose to a Duke team equal. You are half a decade behind with that mindset my man.
I have no problem with your view on that. I can remember from 2001 to present when VT used to dominate Duke until that fateful night Duke finally beat Virginia Tech at home.
That's kinda my point haha. Those dominant times you remember were....10-20 years ago :(
Seem like a lifetime ago, doesn't it?
Fuente would have been fired if he had stuck with Willis. Hooker saved his VT tenure. At least for a year.....
At least our offense scored some points. Did our offense give up 45 points? Yeah it was embarrassing, but what part of the game failed? I'd argue our defense failed more than our offense did. So both Wake and Duke defenses were Foster. Offense under Beamer scored 0 against Wake, who, if I remember correctly sucked worse than Duke does now. And offense under Fuente scored 10, with a QB Fuente subsequently replaced.
Agreed. Regardless of how anyone feels about that Wake game, it was tied and the game went to overtime. Last time I checked that means we had a good shot to win it.
That Duke game? Woof, no chance of winning that one. We were completely outclassed.
Beamer's last few years had some tough losses. But I always felt that they were at least close losses. Fuente has delivered some of the biggest ass-kicking losses that VT has ever seen.
But in your previous comment you said that we had one of the best DC in college football. Yes we only scored 10 points but the defense looked lost most of the night.
JMU loss is the worst loss in my years following VT.
Duke. Period. At home, we got boat raced, we couldnt stop them. And we looked like a sulking high school team with no where to go.
In back to back years we lost to Old Dominion, got embarrassed at home by Duke, and lost to Virginia for the first time since 2003.
Wake Forest was bad. Losing to ECU was bad. But the losses we are taking now are legitimately damaging. I mean heck, the one loss Beamer has that is somewhat relatable to ODU was JMU, and we followed that up by running the table and winning the ACC. We followed ODU up by needing to get Marshall on the schedule at short notice to have cattle fodder to maintain bowl eligibility.
Also lost in that shuffle are two-score wins at home vs Furman, ODU and Rhode Island. All in a 4-week span.
Wait, what?? I feel like this is creating a misleading narrative about a hurricane-related cancellation by ECU. It's not like Fuente found some loophole and played an extra game. Not to mention ECU was absolute garbage and went 3-9 that year while Marshall was decent at 9-4 so we ended up playing a much tougher opponent.
Let's not forget we needed the final game of the season to become bowl eligible in 3 of Beamer's final 4 seasons too.
Yeah that's a poor way of describing it but it's not like it was a good season after ODU - ideally you wouldn't lose so badly to GT, BC, Pitt, and Miami (in a row!) to be 4-6 heading into the Commonwealth cup (and even that was a squeaky bum win) to force the need for the Marshall game. But a presumptive win vs ECU earlier in the season would have invalidated the need to schedule Marshall, yes
For Wake it was only the offense though the defense was ballin'. For duke both sides of the ball sucked.. Duke loss is worse than Wake.
The 2014-2015 teams were on the cusp of being good, like 10-win good. They had just mastered the art of losing and dealt with a lot of injuries. Of the 12 games lost in those two seasons, only three of them were by more than one possession. The first one was that Thursday night disaster against Miami in 2014. The second was the Ohio State opener when Brewer got hurt. The third was a 10-point loss to Miami at the Orange Bowl while Brewer was still out. The 2014 team even won two games on the road against ranked opponents (Ohio State and Duke). The last two seasons, we had the 2018 ODU, GT, Pitt, and Miami games (to be fair, the backup QB was playing for all of those as well, similar to Motley. I still don't find that 2015 team as abysmal as the 2018 team, though) and then the 2019 Duke game that were all memorable for the wrong reasons. In total, we've lost 12 games in the last two seasons, like 2014-15, but eight of them have been by more than one possession. I'd say we're in a worse place in that regard.
As far as recruiting goes, it tough to judge at this point. Frank's staff wasn't exactly setting the world on fire, but some of his players blossomed into really good players for the 2016-17 seasons. Fuente recruited pretty well in the 2017-19 classes but did worse than Beamer did in his final years for the 2020 cycle and is doing the same for 2021. We can't judge until the product hits the field though. Maybe the staff is just great at talent evaluation. I call this a wash so far.
As far as the coaching staff goes, I feel a little worse about Fuente's current staff than Beamer's at the end. I think that after 2012, Beamer had finally stopped being loyal to a fault. He demoted Stinespring and parted ways with Newsome and O'cain. The Loeffler replacement at OC was viewed as good at the time despite some games where the offense was horrible. I will say that every offensive line coach under Beamer after Newsome was a good one. I also think that Shane Beamer wasn't nearly as bad as he gets credit for. Trey Edmunds had a good season in 2013 until injuries happened, JC Coleman was playing great at the end of 2014, and Travon McMillian rushed for over 1000 yards as a freshman in 2015. My biggest beef with Shane was the running back by committee approach despite there being a clear cut best guy. Moorehead was a good hire for the receivers. I honestly can't remember who took over in 2015 though. As far as Fuente's staff goes, I'm a little weary. Cornelsen has had some good moments and some bad ones. Like I said earlier in the thread, though, the alleged Kill incident doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Lechtenberg has never coached running backs before, but neither did Shane, so I'll hold out on judgment. I feel decent about Jafar Williams given Tayvion Robinson's freshman year, but he was another Fuente guy who didn't exactly inspire confidence with his hire. Vance Vice is definitely the best recruiter on the staff in my opinion, but he leaves some to be desired from a pure coaching standpoint. French has detailed that before. Fuente's best hire was Teerlinck, and he was another guy from Fuente's past. I just don't exactly have confidence in his ability to part ways with coaches from his past and make a hire that isn't someone else from his past. I suppose Justin Hamilton wasn't necessarily from his past, but he had experience with him. Either way, I view Beamer's final years' coaching staff as better.
No we are not better off. When Frank retired it felt like the program still had some good bones and just needed the right caretaker to bring it back to national prominence. It still felt like we were part of the big dogs pack, but were just having some down years in the twilight of the legend. Now I feel like we are solidly in the middle tier. I used to think we were the favorites for the coastal crown every year and now it seems like that is the goal to strive for. Say Fuente was no longer the coach tomorrow, I don't think a top notch hire would have this program in the playoffs in the next 3-4 years. It feels like we are fighting uphill where we used to be trying to not slip off the top.
Oh i dunno, I think a guy like Jeff Fisher could turn us into a legitimate powerhouse in a very short time.
You want to replace Fuente with JEFF FISHER? King of 7-9 Jeff Fisher? No thanks. You must really be desperate to get rid of Fu to consider Fisher as a viable candidate. Honestly, very few former NFL coaches would make me feel worse if they suddenly became our head coach.
Oh yeah absolutely. There have been some data points that have come to light over the past week that pretty much confirm the fact that yes, THAT Jeff Fisher would immediately vault us into the national title picture.
I see what you did there.gif
CantTellIfSeriousOrJoking.GIF
I got the joke, but that was a risky play on your part. Respect.
While going through others comments, it got me thinking.
What if Fuente had come in as the OC before ever going to Memphis. He would have been the OC with Bud under Beamer, with the option to take over once Beamer retired.
Anyway, was thinking about how different things would be now, and how those last three Beamer seasons could have been something completely different.
When Frank was going .500, losing to bad teams and recruiting at (for him) a subpar level, he at least had the decency to throw the fan base a bone with a marquee win against #8 Ohio State. Not that that solves many problems at all, but it was a nice surprise in the midst of some rough football. Fuente doesn't have a marquee win yet. He should be in good position against Penn State at home with most of his team back, but I'd be lying if I said I trusted him to pull it out.
I'm also more pessimistic on the J-Ham move. I still think it was a lazy hire, and I wonder whether Fuente having Baylor on the mind played any part in it, because the optics sure feel like he winged it. Add in the fact that the youth infusion on staff hasn't resulted in immediate recruiting dividends, while other programs seem to enjoy that whenever they make similar changes.
I'm rambling. I was more optimistic in 2015. My expectations are low for the remainder of the Fuente tenure. But bottom line, whether it was 2015 or now, I don't think Tech's in a great spot to routinely challenge for a Coastal title.
Rumor is JHam was 3rd choice behind Barry Odom and Chris Ashe, neither of which we could afford (probably one of the reasons he pursued Baylor in the first place).
That said, I think Fuente/JHam did a good job of building a support staff on defense. TnT addresses a huge recruiting concern for VT. Claeys has plenty of experience. Ryan Smith knows the state well. Honest question - can you find a better staff for the price?
Perhaps not, and maybe my biggest realization over the five years that we are talking about here, is that Tech's position as a P5 program, and most importantly the program's coffers, are more diminished than I ever realized. I wasn't a big fan of the Smith hire, as Fuente has shown that he can't necessarily take advantage of staffing ties to VA (Zohn), at a time when the commonwealth seems desperate for Tech to invest itself back into the state. Hiring an FCS guy to take the lead on state ops while you try to build a house in Texas was a weird move in hindsight.
My biggest J-Ham gripe is that you took a guy with zero FBS experience prior to Tech (which was a whopping 10 months on staff here), and then gave him the keys to the car and a boatload of money. It really stacks the deck against him, even before COVID blew off the off season.
Imagine how this site would react, when names were floating around, that the ultimate decision was going to be a guy who had been a DC for three years at a Division II SAC program and never once recruited or coached at the FBS level. It'd be different if J-Ham was recruiting at a white-hot level since joining the staff here. We haven't seen it, and right now Fuente has lost the benefit of the doubt to me.
TnT, on paper, addresses the recruiting concern...but again we haven't seen it yet. Aside from Brown (now projecting for LB), does Tech have any real shot at the moment for a top 300 d-line talent for the 2021 class? Similar competitors in the ACC coastal, with far worse overall football records than Tech, bring in alumni as recruiting staff with ties to VA and are wrecking shop at the moment. Tapp seems like a great guy, but the vibe I get is that the TnT project is going to need some time to gain steam. Our rivals don't seem to have that problem, and it's frustrating as a fan that Tech can't seem to weaponize staff changes in 2016 or 2020 into relatively quick recruiting results, while other "peer" programs can.
This I totally agree with. I was underwhelmed with the hire initially, but I'm excited with how the staff came together, and now I'm really curious to see how this staff does.
Justin Fuente has dealt with a lot of adversity since he has been here. If the team loses shit games this year I'll be concerned. I think he's turning the corner with the right coaching staff and player buy in. Yea it hasn't looked pretty the past couple years, but a lot of it was out of his hands (Trevon Hill comes to mind). Everyone here seems to focus on recruiting numbers from high school players. The best player that Fuente brought was his first transfer, Jerod Evans. He scooped up some great talent from the portal this year and I'm excited what this team will do in 2020. Who says we don't get even better transfers in positions of need next year?
Call me ignorant if you want, but I enjoy cheering for the Hokies. Nothing so far has shown me that this team will go 6-7 or 7-6 like we did at the end of Beamer's tenure. I think we are in a great spot to get some momentum going into recruiting next season and beyond. Time will tell, but I plan on being at a big bowl game after challenging Clemson for an ACC Championship this year.
One correction, Beamer didn't have a losing season in his last 25 years. Even in Beamers last couple of meh years he broke even at worst. Fuente was the one that broke that streak.
If anything, our national clout has certainly dropped. Part of that is obviously residual from the 2000's propping us up in the last few years of Beamer, but I feel like have fallen into irrelevancy now.
Just my humble opinion, but overall, I think we're not as well off. However, it's not all Fuente's fault. As other posters have noted, a lot of issues with injuries and knucklehead players causing drama weren't all on Fuente. He dealt with them as well as any of us could have, to be honest.
Another thing that isn't he fault is that the ACC Coastal sucks as home for Virginia Tech. We play a totally non-compelling schedule, with highlights like games against decent out of conference opponents and the occasional rumble with FSU or Clemson. I believe that is a big reason why recruiting is so hard for us now. It's just hard to sell top players to come to VT when there are so many other options out there. Imagine - playing for Auburn, and home or away, most games are large, packed sellout crowds with lots of national attention and pageantry. Contrast that with away games at Duke and UVA. And home games against mostly "Meh" profile teams. Fuente can do nothing about that.
I said this to friends at the time too, but while I love Bud, I kinda wish he'd either gotten the Head Coach job, or retired/left. He was kind of long in the tooth and he kept us vulnerable to negative recruiting based on his age and not knowing if he'd be around for much longer. I wish him the best, but I can't help thinking maybe we'd have been better off with a new defensive staff then instead of now.
As for the offense, Fuente came in to light a fire under that unit. When he had better talent, he did. Since then, he hasn't been able to put better talent on the field between injuries, attrition, and recruiting busts. I think he's fine when he's coaching the team. I don't know that he can turn the tide of recruiting to have better players to coach. At the same time, Beamer was having that issue too. I don't know that anyone short of Urban Meyer, Nick Saban, or Bear Bryant himself could turn that tide.
We just don't have a compelling enough story to tell recruits about their potential future as Hokies anymore because our conference just doesn't have the marketability. Blacksburg is great for a certain type of person. However, I think most young guys will be looking for a different environment than Blacksburg, more hip, modern, bigger, etc. They've been down, but look at Knoxville in Tennessee. The downtown area is great. I think most young guys these days will want something more "big time" than Blacksburg.
I don't know how we overcome the issue with marketability for Virginia Tech football these days without switching conferences, and that doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar. I think it's gonna take some kind of major shake up with the conferences, the NCAA, and some form of shake up with the TV and money side to create better conditions. However, I also think if that shake up happens, it will still favor the Blue Blood schools more than VT simply because they are the cash cows so much more than VT.
Beamer overcame so much that was inherently stacked against VT to have his run. I hope Fuente can do it too in the future, but I don't blame him for not doing it because I don't think hardly anyone else could do it either. VT football will continue to stay as it is, with the occasional run at an ACC championship with things align right.
I wish the team the best of luck, and cheer for them, and stay optimistic that we can get back to more lofty status, though. I'll just end by saying Go Hokies!
I like Fuente. He seems to be a great coach and a good person. I hope he succeeds here long term.
With that said, he HAS to figure out recruiting.
Because of our lack of success recruiting, I actually feel better about next season than I do about the following years. Good coaching is no replacement for talented athletes.
The program was dropping when Fuente took over.
Anyone who took it over was going to have a challenge.
Seems to me that it's actually on an upswing now that some of Fuente's recruits are in place.
I'd say the program overall is better now than when Fuente arrived. I think no matter what, it was going to get worse before it got better. I feel like most of us knew that the team wasn't headed in the right direction.
Wins and losses are a lagging indicator. I'm sure hoping the results on the field improve this year.
I would say better position but the thing giving me doubt is the recruiting trajectory. Fuente had some good recruiting classes his first few years and seems poised to take advantage of those talented classes...but he needs to stay above water this year (top 35 maybe) with recruiting (especially considering 2020 class) so we don't see another downturn in team performance 2-3 years down the road. This year is make or break on the recruiting trail and on the field for Fuente.
I think Fuente exceed expectation in his first year as he inherited a senior heavy class that quickly bought into Fuente's vision for the team. Cornelson rewrote some of the records with Jerrod Evans throwing to Bucky "He's 7'10" And Fall Down Catching The Ball" Hodges, Cam Phillips, and Isaiah Ford.
Fuente also had Bud Foster who had talents in defense with Tim Settle and the Edmunds brothers.
For whatever reason - locker room toxicity that saw exodus of players transferring from the program to sit-down meeting by Fuente with the players in January to ask, "What the eff is going on?", I think the program began to slide and recruits took notice. It didn't help with the rumor-mongering of Fuente considering Baylor before deciding to stay put, I think the program has essentially lost its footing and that lies squarely on the shoulders of the head coach. He is the one who set the vision and tone.
I don't know if VT is better off with or without him because this is the first time in forever that VT is not the alpha dog in the hunt. Remember, it took Beamer years to reach a level where he enjoyed considerable success, and in today's sporting climate, patience is as short as changing one's underwear. Fuente no longer has that luxury. He has to win and start winning now.
One thing that does has me concerned is how often the team looks woefully unprepared coming off a bye week. It has become a trend, in my opinion.
So just because we believe VT is a better program than most people/recruits believe it is doesn't help how we view our recruiting. I just as much as everyone wish we were competing for ACC Championships and National Championship year in year out. In reality we made it there only once and that was with someone special named Michael Vick. We have had more national relevance in the past then we do now but our program has always been about a blue collar work ethic and not high rated recruits. Yes, I would love to be pulling 4 and 5 star rated players every year but we never have done that in the past either. Also, recruiting has changed so much with social media. And about our loss to ODU, we lost our starting QB in that game...hard for any team to overcome something like that against anyone. This season will be make or break, if we don't win the coastal we are in trouble.
I like our offense a good bit better. We had some very close games last season and if they'd gone our way, I'm guessing the feeling about the direction of the team would be different.
Defense was great last season and I'm really happy to have a real Hokie who studied under Bud as DC. I like a lot of things about how things are currently.
Beamer was underachieving with a lot of talent at the end, and when Fuente got his QB (Evans), he took this program to what it was during the first decade in the ACC. There are a lot of things since that Fuente could have done better, there are a lot of things that were out of his control - as many have already pointed out. But if the last coach wasn't a shoe-in Hall of Famer, alumnus, beloved by the community would we have the same feelings about 2012-2015?
When we win the national championship next year we will have eclipsed even the best Beamer years.
Seriously, I think football is changing rapidly and Fuente has had to learn P5 ball and adjust on the fly to the changing landscape. Ultimately, I think we are better than 2015 going into 2016 because Fuente bringing in Jerod was a HUGE component to the 2016 success. But we are not where we wanted to be....yet. Recruiting has to improve, so we will see.
100% depends on this year.
100% agree
From Chris's numbers, above:
So, here's the numbers, summarized
Recruiting-- Overall, Offense, Defense
2012: 21st -- 31st, 63rd, 8th
2013: 28th -- 26th, 77th, 1st
2014: 29th -- 45th, 86th, 11th
2015: 42nd -- 31st, 57th, 18th
2016: 26th -- 22nd, 39th, 21st
2017: 24th -- 21st, 77th, 9th
2018: 26th -- 55th, 41st, 77th
2019: 75th -- 38th, 56th, 39th
Recruiting: Improvement except for last year
Offense: I'd say you can argue some improvement
Defense: I'd say you can argue some regression
Overall? Seems to me the jury is still out, and like Palmetto Hokie said, a lot depends on this year. To me, it feels like the team has addressed some significant deficiencies that really did need fixing for the long term.
Fair or not, part of the argument against Fuente's recruiting is last year's class and the current outlook of the 2021 class. If you include both of those, I know 2021 isn't over yet, but it does affect perception, then recruiting looks to be on a downward trend.
You're right. Was looking good, but unfortunately, recruiting has taken an unfortunate turn this summer.
If Fuente can get VT back to it's winning ways, I have no doubt they'll be able to get recruiting back on track.
So I decided to take a look at what our average recruit rating (247 composite) has looked like since Fuente took over. Only comparing the Power 5 here, so these rankings are out of 64 teams.
2016 - 84.85 - 37th in the P5, towards the top of the 3rd quartile
2017 - 86.13 - 26th in the P5, lower middle of the 2nd quartile
2018 - 87.46 - 23rd in the P5, upper middle of the 2nd quartile
2019 - 87.39 - 28th in the P5, lower middle of the 2nd quartile
2020 - 84.98 - 54th in the P5, upper middle of the bottom quartile
When you average out these average recruit ratings across those 5 years, ours is 86.16. 32nd in the P5, which... is the midpoint of the P5 rankings
Yeah, it only takes one stinker year to greatly skew those numbers. 2016 was a transitional year. There really is no great excuse for last year.
I would call last year an outlier, but VT needs to up their game and make it so.
The problem is....
After DD and Neville leaving, our average this year is 84.90, a slight tick downward from last year. It's going to take quite a turnaround this cycle to get the numbers back up to where they were just a couple years ago.
The problem with that analysis, of course, is that I suspect you're downgrading the entire class because we recruited a German OG who has a pretty low rating.
So I'm not convinced that's the most fair way to look at it. I think we're a better team with Miletic, but he brings a simplistic average down.
Without him, the average is 0.856275, a difference of 0.007275.
Not as much as I'd guessed, but still a slight tick up from last year, not down.
And that analysis assumes recruiting is finished.
We lost a couple of our top recruits. That's going to sting a little. But the class isn't finished yet. I hope.
While I 100% agree with your concerns around recruiting, this is going to be a really weird class due to covid. For the first time in at least a decade, I actually believe it is possible to find multiple 'diamonds in the rough.' Fuente could've actually out-scouted a bunch of other teams. Now, that doesn't excuse Fuente's inability to close the deal on recruits, but it is possible (albeit unlikely) that this class could be underrated.
That said... Fuente has been hyping this class up for over year now. It's a huge let down if it's only top 30 (which might be optimistic at this point).
Well I think we are in much better shape because Fuente's buyout is getting smaller every year.
I had hopes for him but it seems like he is Joe Btfsplk (you young whippersnappers are gonna have to google it). Every time things look better wham everything goes south. Started with our QB who should have stayed in 2017 to take us to new heights then all the others have been discussed above (Duke, ODU, the 2018 revolution, yada yada) and continues to the recent DD coming to take us to new heights and then wham. Just feels like its been one train wreck after another and the only question seems to be when and what are the next train wreck. Maybe we should just enjoy it and start a pool on guessing the next train wreck.
Ask me after this season.
- First year he had a veteran team and we were within a play of tying eventual national champion Clemson.
- Second year, some departures that killed both sides of the ball (if all those guys stayed, I think we wouldve won the coastal again at least).
- Third year, the recruiting misses from Beamer's last two years and Fuente's first year show up and we basically field a high school senior+1 team. It was an ugly season but I fully expected it given what we had.
- Last year we saw improvement when we found a QB. If Hooker started the whole year and Farley doesnt get injured then we beat BC & UVa to win the Coastal with a 10 win season.
- This year I think our OLine will actually be a huge advantage for us. I think Keshaun King is going to have a great year (I think he wore down after a few games but we saw some glimpses of a RB that could be great), Tre and Tayvion are prime for great years with Hooker in his second year, and Mitchell at TE is going to be a huge advantage for us. This is the first year I expect a lot from Fuente as far as the offense goes. Not having Foster and/or Wiles is going to be tough. Especially for those first few games of the season while adjustments are made. Nevertheless, barring major injury, I expect a 10 win season and the Coastal title.
Now, after this year if we're barely making a bowl game or only win 8 games, then I think that means we're in a worse position than when Beamer was here.
I've been fine with Fuente so far...minus that whole Baylor flirtation (which I think was enough for him to lose a long term future here). i think that winning solves mostly everything. If we can pull a 10/11 win season out this year somehow a lot of outlook regarding Fuente will shift...obviously.
I think we are in a better place right now but I also think it could go bad if we don't have a season. I think Clemson is right to be upset this season and we match up well on both sides of the ball. Next year their young D will be loaded again and we will lose our window. UNC is the only team on the schedule that worries me....
I do actually agree they are, theoretically, vulnerable this year relative to recent years. They maintain the center pieces, which has been keeping their hype sky high in Lawrence and Etienne. However, they have to replace 4/5 OL, which until this past class has been a low point on the trail for them and all those guys from the strong 2020 class will be true frosh. They replace their best and most important defensive player in Isaiah Simmons, lose the less utilized ILB, 3/4ths of their secondary, and both of their top two receivers in Tee (NFL), and Ross (surgery). Their backups tend to get a lot of run so it's not like their secondary and OL replacements haven't played solid snaps, but it is definitely going to be an adjustment period while those units gel. They have the talent at WR to replace those guys, but they will need guys to step up that haven't proven much yet, much like we will beyond Tre and TRob.
However, I think they will probably have enough time for their replacement units to gel before the ACCCG game rolls around, and their talent is still far superior to ours overall.
This thread is just a Rorschach test for if you like Fuente or not.
TKP for 3 years now.
If you stop to think about it, just being a debate when comparing a hall of fame coach, how bad is Fuente really?
Fuente can get us to the ACC b=and maybe compete in the ACC regularly but not the national championship
I don't know much, but I know I never saw a post-2004 Beamer-coached team fold up like an old aluminum lawn chair against LOLUVa, which is exactly what happened last November. Just two games ago.
I think like most people have said it's a little column A and a little column B. I think recruiting is not great but am holding out judgement with everything going on in the world until the '21 class is signed before assuming this is back to back stinkers. Fuentes tenure so far has seemed very inconsistent but the end of Franks time felt like a slow and steady slide down. I think this will 100% be clarified after the '20 season... if he wins with his guys coming back that will improve recruiting, fan engagement, and i will be convinced we are definitely in a better position then we were. If he loses, I worry we are in a much worse position. In 2015, especially once Beamer announced his retirement, even with all the downward slides there was a ton of reason to be hopeful about what was next for the program. We were able to go out and handpick our next guy. I really worry if '20 is a stinker, then on top of Fuente looking to be a dud, recruiting issues will get worse, we will then have to take who we can get as the next coach.
I hope this is the case, but I have a feeling that something will happen (COVID makes for an awkward season, HH gets hurt, defense struggles to adjust to new scheme, etc), and we get 8 wins with 4 close losses (PSU, UNC, Louisville, Miami) and we're back having the same conversation again. Half the fan base will think we're still improving and that this was another hiccup that was largely out of Fuente's controll, the other half will thinks we've plateaued and change is necessary. Another year where Fuente isn't bad enough to justify a buy out, but not good enough excite anyone.
It's pretty clear that it will remain a tough crowd until we see some serious upside in both recruiting and on the field.
I think Fuente is a solid coach - not great, but solid - if in the right spot. At this point, I just don't think VT and the pressure cooker of mid-Atlantic/southeast recruiting was a good fit for him and his staff. We may possibly have some success in 2020, but there have been so many head scratcher moments the last few seasons to feel confident in that. And it's difficult for me to feel more optimistic about the overall direction of the program and recruiting than I did at the end of Beamer's tenure.
I'm not directly answering the question, but head football coach at Virginia Tech is not as an attractive job as when Beamer retired. Unfortunately, the program has lost some its shine, and some of that's on Fuente, some of it's not. It's not an undoable situation either.
Please elaborate.
The W/L record speaks for itself.
Past four years is a better W/L than Beamer's last four. Do people really not remember the end of Beamer's tenure?
A deeper look reveals that Fuente was able to win with Beamer's players but not his own. It also indicates that post Beamer, VT has issues attracting talent (both coaching and athletic talent) and may no longer be setup for success. I would think most coaches and players with options aren't super interested in that kind of opportunity.
I dont think Fuente has actually ever had a full team of his own players until now.
You could argue that he did last year, but it was one of the least experienced teams in the P5 overall.
Last year we returned a ton of starters and almost all of our defensive production, all of our WR's, Keene, several OL, where are you getting this idea from?
This has us at 11th in the country in returning production heading into 2019, 3rd in P5.
That's quite literally the opposite of being one of the most inexperienced teams in the P5.
Defensive production = #1, Offensive production = #77. So inexperience on offense.
The defensive production didn't live up to it's hype.
I don't understand all the Fuente hate, when he had very little control of the defense, frankly. He was pretty hands-off, as he needed to be.
What are we even talking about at this point? I honestly wonder if you're just trolling with the Fuente defenses.
You said he had one of the most inexperienced rosters in P5. I provided evidence that this was not even close to true and that in fact it was quite the opposite.
Your response was to deflect the blame onto Foster because Fuente doesn't control the defense??
Guess what? With all that returning production Foster turned his historically bad 77th ranked defense into the 39th ranked defense, which was better than the 57th ranked offense, which actually took a 16 spot fall from 2018 to 2019.
Either way, you said a statement that wasn't defensible. When I provided evidence to the contrary, you deflected onto Foster.
Last year was almost exclusively Fuente's players, and he returned a ton of starters and experience 11th most in the country and 3rd most in the P5.
The way offensive production is calculated hurt us here, but we returned both TE's, of our five players who caught 25 or more balls in 2018, the only one who didn't come back for 2019 was Kumah, who transferred down to ODU. We returned a few OL guys (replaced the others with high level incoming Freshman 4* OL Nester and Hudson), and Deshawn McClease was 5th year guy returning at RB. The production doesn't capture as much of that because we did lose People's production. I should also like to point out the difference between returning production and inexperience. We replaced some of that lost production on offense with experienced players like McClease (5th year).
We just disagree on what's happening here.
No. You're just saying things that are indefensible and wrong, is what's happening here. 11th in the COUNTRY in returning production and 3rd in the P5.
It's the literal opposite of what you said when you said one of the most inexperienced rosters in P5.
Returning production is NOT the same as years of experience.
But even using the numbers you're providing, VT was 77th in terms of returning production on offense. #1 in terms of returning production on defense.
And yet you said overall, not the offense. Overall they were 11th out of 130, and 3rd in the P5.
Also, this is just another example of you constantly moving the goalposts, which I absolutely HATE to say because its such an overused internet term like Strawman.
However, let's document the path:
You say one of the least experienced teams OVERALL in the P5 -> I respond by pointing out that overall we were 11th in returning production, 3rd in the P5 -> Now it doesn't count because it was only the defense that was experienced and the offense was what we were talking about -> I point out this doesn't make sense based on your original statement -> now returning production isn't the same as, and check the new requirement here, "years" of experience.
Do you really not see what you are doing?
My dude, I think you made your point.
You inserted "returning production" which is a little different than experience. I let that slide, and argued it on based on the data you presented. Doesn't mean I was wrong. Means I'm willing to use the data you provided.
But I think it's silly not to look at what the numbers actually mean. The returning production was on defense, not offense. And though it averages out (somehow) to #11, it was #77 offense, #1 defense. That's significant, particularly as people want to argue that it was the offense that wasn't up to par last year.
The folks who have argued all along that Foster was the best thing since sliced bread and that Fuente isn't a good coach now want to say that the lack of production on defense is Fuente's fault. For me, Fuente was hands off on defense. And he sort of had to be. He didn't have the same relationship with Bud that Beamer had. This was the risk he took. In hindsight, I don't think it worked that well.
But I do see where Fuente is going. I think he's a decent coach. So you and I disagree on that. The next year or two is where we find out who is right. Not last year or the year before that. Those were transitional years. I'm not saying they don't count, but the critical years are this one and the next one.
If we have a good season this year, win the games we're supposed to, and maybe win one or two we're not, and win some recruiting battles, I think Fuente will be fine.
That doesn't mean this board won't melt down here and there.
Where does returning production come from if not experienced players?? Are their memories wiped after the season like in men in black? What do you call returning starters and returning production if not experience?
Regardless, I responded to your statement about how experienced his team was last year, which has still not been defended by you at all. You just keep redirecting based on the counter evidence I provide. You've yet to even provide any actual evidence to back your original statement.
This is not what we are discussing. I don't dislike Fuente. I'm not as bullish on him as you, but the only thing that I truly dislike is how you throw baseless excuses like this "inexperienced" defense for him in 2019 which has no basis in reality.
No... I think I'm starting to see what Vtkey is getting at. VT is actually a more attractive job now because we've advertised the following:
"Come to VT, we'll give you at least five seasons and a huge buyout before we start holding you accountable. We won't even fire you for losing to ODU or snapping a 15 year winning streak against UVa (EDIT: Or a worst in P5 recruiting class)."
What coach wouldn't want that kind of unaccountability?
Or a 25 year streak without a losing season (longest in the Country when it ended).
Or an SI article detailing a toxic locker room where players were actively pushing to lose a game. Or publicly interviewing for the Baylor job.
Beamer actually accepted the the head coaching job at UNC. And then turned it down.
Point being..? Beamer had a lot more social and professional capital when he did that. But don't let stuff like context or intellectual honesty stop you from throwing up more chaff.
The point? You tell me. It's your chaff.
I'm pretty sure you brought that up as a difference between the two coaches. You're trying to call Fuente out for managing his career. Like anybody with any sense does.
I don't blame either of them for managing their careers. And I'm glad both of them stayed.
It must be very comforting to go through life addressing every
discreetdiscrete fact as though it exists in a vacuum.we had a thousand comment tkp thread, it definitely wasn't discreet /s
Nice catch. You must've done well on the SAT.
This would be an OK comp if Fuente had been on campus for 13 years at this point, won conference titles, played for the national title within the last two years, produced the overall number one draft pick and lost only a single game in his last two seasons. But instead, this is a rough take. Frank considered leaving when he had exceeded every possible expectation and had hit his ceiling.
Fuente considered leaving like Costanza running out of the apartment fire, knocking the women and children down.
My understanding was Frank considered leaving because he felt like he wasn't being given the resources he needed and was willing to take drastic action as a result. I think a large amount of Fuente's consideration stemmed from the same place.
The other stuff you mentioned is why fans happily accepted Frank back with open arms (and even felt he was justified with his threat) while the reception for Fuente's actions has been lukewarm. The thing is, Fuente could be right about necessary changes and resources even if he hasn't had the lengthy track record and same degree of success.
Not to rehash this whole thing again, but that's why I contend that coming back after flirting with Baylor was just about the worst thing that Fu could have done. He didn't have a fanbase that was overwhelmingly happy to bring him back, and some, myself included, were relieved that Tech could find a new staff and not owe him 12+ million - a win-win.
A hypothetical new coach walks in here, with the majority of the roster returning, and it'd be fair for expectations to remain the same in 2020 (compete for ACC Coastal title). And that hypothetical new coach would almost certainly start recruiting for 2021 and beyond at a better clip that Fuente. What would happen, a bunch of guys transfer? Not like that wasn't a problem under Fuente to begin with.
Unless Fuente leaves and the systemic issues in supporting a highly competitive football program persist then we end up a much worse spot. A coaching change late in the cycle while attempting to make a budget hire? Could have been eerily similar to how things went with James Johnson- and I don't see how that would have been a desirable outcome for our flagship program.
You're conflating your opinion (and I'm sure there are others) with that of the whole fan base.
There are people who were furious with Fuente for talking to Baylor. Not because they liked him, but because they already didn't.
But that's just their opinion, man.
Chris and VTkey and anyone else who knows more than me (which is probably 98% of the people who have posted on this thread). Question about experience. Isn't it possible to have a lot of returning talent and still be inexperienced? I just remember thinking that Fuente should get a pass 2 seasons ago with all of the people who graduated and left early to enter the draft and all the real young kids starting. Didn't we have something like the most freshman and sophomores in the 2 deep ever in the modern era or some such? Anyway, we did return a ton and the team should have been a lot better last year than 2 ago. 6-7 to 8-5 was, to me, kind of the minimum acceptable level. Had hoped for more, but did not see it as terrible. To me, this coming year needs to be when the team really steps up and, if not ...
I guess I'm wondering, is it better to have a lot of 19-20 year old sophomores and juniors starting who have a full year of experience as starters from the prior year, or is it better to have 22-23 year old seniors or redshirt seniors who were back ups or had bit parts for years and are starting for the first time? Assume the talent levels are similar. The young people had to start or play a ton as freshmen or sophomores before they were ready due to roster problems and not that they were starting at age 18 because they are just phenomenal talent.
I don't know. Looking for education from folks like you.
That was the point I tried to make. Even last year VT had a relatively young team.
We won't really know until we see how they do this year.
And we deserve some improved QB play at this point, though I know "deserves got nothing to do with it". We've got some solid physical talent at QB, but which QB has an edge in the mental game? Can Hooker get it done, or will it be Burmeister or Patterson?
I don't believe you can call players who have made a full or close to full season of starts at the P5 level inexperienced. You can call them young, if they are true sophomores, but not inexperienced.
There are two forms of experience:
A) snaps played in actual game situations
B) time spent in the program in practice/film study/S&C
I believe A is more valuable. Nothing makes you more ready to play on a Saturday than having done it before in real situations when everything counts. There is also overlap in A that isn't guaranteed in B.
If A is true, then you also have at LEAST equal, but possibly greater B experience. However long you've been in the program starting and playing snaps in real games you've also been in the program at practice. You can have years of B experience with little or no A experience.
All that to say, I don't believe you can call a player with a full year of starting experience or playing in almost or every game inexperienced, simple as that. The turnover in college football is very quick. Most elite players have two/three seasons where they will feature prominently. A less elite player might have five total seasons with a redshirt, but it's also rare that they will actually feature on field for more than a 1-3 seasons. So to me it's silly to call a player with a full year of starting or playing frequently inexperienced.
There is some value in experience. It's well noted by football analysts if there are a lot of juniors and seniors on a team. It's noted as an advantage.
You can be insulting all you want, but I don't understand why you can't bring yourself to concede that it's a valid point.
You didn't argue they were young. You said they were inexperienced. 2019 was a team full of returning starters. That isn't inexperienced.
Edit: Since you mentioned juniors and seniors, let's take a look at our 2019 roster of major contributors and their years of experience. 3rd year players (Junior/r.So) or more will be bolded since you identified juniors and seniors as (your new requirement) for experience.
QB's:
Hendon Hooker - R. So (3 years)
Ryan Willis - R. Sr (5 years)
Quincy Patterson - R. Fr (2 years)
RB:
Deshawn McClease - R. Jr (5th year in program despite being r. jr, qualifies either way)
Keshawn King - Fr
WR:
Kaleb Smith - R. So (2 years)
*Tre Turner - So (2 years)
Damon Hazelton - R. Jr (4 years)
Tayvion Robinson - Fr
Hezekiah Grimsely - Jr. (3 years)
Phil Patterson - R. Jr. (4 years)
OL:
Lecitus Smith - R. So (3 years)
Austin Cannon - R. Jr. (4 years)
Silas Dzansi - R. So (3 years)
Bryan Hudson - Fr
Doug Nester - Fr
*Christian Darrisaw - So
Zachariah Hoyt - R. Jr (4 years)
T.J. Jackson - R. Jr (4 years)
Luke Tenuta - R. Fr (2 years)
DL:
Jarrod Hewitt - R. Jr (4 years)
Emmanuel Belmar - R. Jr (4 years)
Dashawn Crawford - Jr (JUCO)
Jaylen Griffen - R. So (3 years)
Tyjuan Garbutt - R. So (3 years)
Eli Adams - R. Fr (2 years)
Javeon Bection - R. Fr (2 years)
Mario Kendricks - Fr
Norell Pollard - Fr
LB:
*Dax Hollifield - So (2 years)
Rayshard Ashby - Jr (3 years)
Alan Tisdale - R. Fr (2 year)
Chamarri Conner - So (2 year)
Khalil Ladler - R. Jr (4 year)
S:
Reggie Floyd - Sr (4 years)
Divine Deablo - R. Jr (4 years)
Devon Hunter - R. So (3 years)
Tyree Rodgers - R. Jr (4 years)
CB:
Caleb Farley - R. So (3 years)
Jermaine Waller - So (2 years)
Jovonn Quillen - R. Sr (5 years)
Brion Murray - So (JUCO)
Armani Chatman - R. Fr (2 years)
* 2nd year player who was a returning starter
You specifically mentioned teams that have Jr's and Sr's, (so 3rd year + players). Looks to me like 2019's contributor list was chock full of 3rd year or older players. Even by that specific measure you have purported the 2019 roster looks like it had plenty of experience.
Experience isn't a binary switch. It's not "on" or "off".
It's continual, and it's relative to other teams. So if it helps, just add "relative to other teams" after inexperienced, and perhaps you'll better understand what I was trying to say.
It seems to me that you were trying so hard to prove me wrong that you missed the point I was trying to make.
Edit (to respond to what you'd call a Ninja edit):
Once again, it's YOU who are moving the goal posts. We are talking about experience on the field, still, right?
Let's be clear. VT will have more experience on the field this year than last year. I'd expect that to give us an edge over teams who lost some experienced senior starters. Are you going to keep arguing that this is not a factor?
Or are you going to pretend I've committed some kind of logical fallacy that you can't respond to? That I've somehow "moved the goal posts" on what the concept of experience is?
And once again, I'll point out that most of the experience you're referring to was on the defense, not the offense. It does make a difference, if you're trying to analyze where this team is relative to when Fuente took over.
I think it is time for a Chris/Vtkey cage match to the death
I'd just get accused of moving the cage.
I didn't move the goalposts. I'm responding to all the times you have moved them.
By any measure you choose, the 2019 roster that you called "one of the least experienced in P5 overall" is not inexperienced. I used returning production, you redirected, I showed you how many juniors and seniors we had. I'm anxiously awaiting where you redirect it next.
This is your original statement that I have been disproving over and over again, no matter how many times you try to redirect the conversation.
You were so busy trying to prove that I'm somehow trying to change the meaning of "experience" that you may have missed my point.
But when you look at the experience numbers that you've brought to this conversation, isn't most of it on defense? Can't we conclude from this that the offense might show improvement this year, having mostly had another year under their belt?
Don't look now, but we're back (sort of) to my original point. That we were inexperienced (relative to other teams) on offense, and that may well have been an important factor.
This was your original point. This is what I refuted over and over again.
You got so hung up on proving my definition of "experience" wrong that you missed the point of the conversation.
Are we better off now than when Fuente took over?
I'm going to give that a qualified "Yes". Because we did OK with the #77 returning offense, and the #1 returning defense (which was pretty inconsistent given that rating). And don't forget we substituted Hooker in for Willis, so we had some inexperience at QB as well.
In spite of all of that, we STILL made it to a bowl game. Just think of how great it could be if a few things go right this year.
This is ridiculous. Experience is a cumulative thing.
Thank you both for the responses and feedback. I can see both sides, and can also see that I too may have been thinking age and experience. Just felt going into this past season that we should see significant improvement because all of those experienced starters were coming back, but that I should temper my expectations because a lot of the people had the full year of experience being thrown into the fire earlier than they were ready. But at the same time, they were still young (which I did think of as inexperienced). Sort of they are experienced and not at the same time!
Remember going into last year thinking that I would be real happy at 9-4 since how many teams improve by 3 games in a season. But they should definitely have improved. 8-5 to me was disappointing - especially the way the last 2 games ended - but did not seem awful to me.
Next season (assuming we have it in 2020 or spring 2021) should be a step up again as they have lots of experience and are no longer young. Remember someone saying that 8 wins and in contention for the Coastal won't do it next year, and I'm firmly in that camp. but I'm not in the dump Fuente camp either. Although if you put a gun to my head and said do you lean more for Fuente or against, I would say I am skeptical and leaning against now. But have to give this next season to make a decision.
I suppose you could make the argument that a team can be 'experienced' but 'immature' (physically or mentally), but I don't think that applies to the 2019 team.
Because Fuente ultimately owns recruiting strategy - How many players to recruit at each position and where to find these players. The defensive depth chart had some huge holes in it for a two year period, which came to a head in 2018. Most of the losses were somewhat predictable (Mook, AA, and Hill all had behavioral issues, Tim was definitely going to the draft), but yet there was no depth at DT or in the secondary.
Also, I get the defense sucked, but the offense could've lessened the load for them by sustaining more drives and providing better field position.
I agree that there was a unlikely/unlucky culmination of events that led to our first losing season in 25 years, but it was looked like the staff didn't even consider that these things could go wrong.
I'm really beginning to wonder if you are on the staff or related to the guy. The over the top defense of Fuente is unreal sometimes. So how many years do you give him to prove something? When can we finally give him full ownership of this team and its issues? Until we finally win 10 games again and have a decent recruiting year so you can say "Ha! Told you so!" You can't just keep people around and hope it eventually works out in today's college football world. If you're not proactive, you're falling behind.
I think it's not so easy to turn a football program around.
I've always said that.
If you throw out a coach before his changes have a chance to succeed, you end up in never-never land. If we had thrown Beamer out after four years, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
So yes, someone needs to point that out.
Agreed and I understand that. But how long realistically do you give a coach in today's climate? It's year 5 and we are debating whether it's his team or he has his players. To me that's a year 3, maybe year 4 arguing point. But not at this stage. Fuente inherited a roster that was not deep I admit, but had 9 NFL draft picks from the 16-17 squads. I don't see us replenishing the roster with that level of talent.
I don't think the program had a ton of "turning around" to do in 2015. We had an aging coach with some health issues who everyone knew was retiring soon. The VT football brand was stronger then than it is today. Frankly I don't know what our brand is today. The fact that the first four years of Fu recruiting are only marginally better than Beamer's last four (And trending to be some of the worst ever and lowest in the P5) is alarming to me. Add in the fact that there has been a large bust rate so far in the 17 and 18 classes, and it's hard for me to get very excited looking ahead.
For me, right now is not the right time to bail as a fan.
I get that some folks bailed last year.
But the future iSNOW.
17 is a weird class, because there are several locked NFL prospects in it, but not the guys we would have expected at the time. Seeing what Hunter does this year will be interesting, because that could change the outlook a decent amount I think.
Not sure who you're talking about in 18. There's a lot of production from the big names, and some good fill-in so far from the lower ranked dudes, with a lot of room for upside in the next year or two.
At least that's an indication the AD understands the the inter-tubes.
I don't think it does. We won as many games last year as Beamer won in the best of his last four seasons (2013). His average recruit ranking his last four years was .8663. Fuente's is .8616. That's a dip, I guess. It certainly doesn't reflect a wholesale loss of ability to recruit talent. We're second only to Clemson in number of selections to the Athlon all-ACC preseason team. We just don't have a bad team right now.
I'm willing to buy that we're in the middle of a crucial period right now. If we have several 2020s in a row, we will definitely be in trouble. But one data point isn't a trend.
I think that a lot of people felt in 2016 that VT was a bit of a 'turn key' job, and that if you got a good coach in there, it would be 'easy' (for lack of a better term) to win 10 games a year. Fuente proved that's not the case. Seeing that there have been rumors that we have been outbid for coordinators multiple times, we're definitely a less desirable job than we were in 2015/2016.
I don't think that was ever the case.
VT did more with less for a long time, but the game has changed. That's not Fuente's fault.
Seems to me that VT has strong branding, but you still need to invest.
If you think Frank Beamer did more with less talent than we have now then I question your eye for talent. The floor may be higher but the ceiling is much lower.
I was talking about finances, but Beamer also managed to find some under-recruited talent, which is also a little harder to do now.
This could be resolved by fans donations. I think there are roughly two camps: one is apathetic to the situation and the other donates but is becoming impatient with Fuente as they cast envious eyes to Clemson.
And the third camp who is ignorant (by no fault of their own), either (1) not knowing how to donate or (2) not understand the purpose of a donation.
LinkedIn lists 169,589 Alumni. Hokie Club has 17,814 members (as of May 2020). There's plenty of room for improvement in that space as well.
I mean, just by reading the room/college football landscape. People don't talk about VT anymore. We aren't in that conversation of tier 2 programs anymore. We have fallen in the minds of the masses. I can't really think that that has hurt our attractiveness. Prior moves to VT that would have been seen as an upgrade might now be seen as a lateral move, or even a downgrade in some cases.
ESPN recently did a break down on coaching jobs for the P5. They had VT in Tier 3, basically noting that we could bump up into Tier 2, but that we do have some struggles to navigate that may potentially never allow us into Tier 1.
I remember when I was in High School and I had already decided VT was my future school, that many folks would talk about the entrance to VT. That you drove down 460 going west and had to take a right at a farm to get there. They also noted that you could miss it. The school seems to have focused on some of this, as they are redirecting what is the main entrance and how you arrive. But I think the general thought is still there, VT is in the middle of nothing essentially.
Got a link? I want to read!
It looks to be Insider, so not sure sharing it would work. Didn't even realize it was, but guess I'm logged into ESPN+.
I didn't get this on purpose, was part of the DisneyPlus and Hulu bundle by the way...
If you want some live sports to watch all the Italian Serie A and Coppa Italia soccer matches will be on there.
What are you basing this on? I don't know that the roster that you'd be working with, if hired today, is notably worse than what Fuente inherited. We've won more games in the past four years than we did in the previous four. You're no longer the guy coming in after the legendary coach, now you're replacing the one who, in the eyes of many fans, will always be the guy who fucked up Frank's program. The worst part about now over then is Clemson's dominance over the conference, but our division is wide open every year. What else is actually worse off now than it was then?
The one thing I see that's actually worse is that Carolina is finally getting it's shit together.
But that's not Fuente's fault. Mack Brown knows how to recruit, and Sam Howell is a decent QB.
Yeah, but that's always been true at either Miami or FSU. There's a threat every year that they actually do something with the massive talent pool that they manage to build. Not saying I'm not worried, but I'm not ceding the next half decade of the Coastal to UNC until I see it on the field.
You're not wrong - it's like racing aircraft carriers - but it's screwing up our #NC2VT recruiting vibe.
I think NC talent is likely going to decide who becomes the consistently better Coastal team between UNC and VT.
North Carolina has always been a major recruiting area for VT as long as I've been a fan, but with the way the state is growing I expect Charlotte and the Triangle to become increasingly fertile and deep talent beds in the short and long term.
tldr; I think NC2VT is crucially important to the future of our program, perhaps even more so than Virginia.
BINGO.
We'll be needing to up our game, because this year, they're kicking our ass there. We need to be competitive in NC.
The fact that this is even a question is an indictment of Fuente's tenure thusfar.
True. Would be much better if it weren't even a question in anyone's mind.
If we won the ACC three years in a row it would be question in some people's minds.
There would be questions on a lot of minds, if Virginia Tech wins the ACC three years in a row. Just how many of those minds would be Hokies?
Let's find out, please.
Let's start by winning it once, and see where that takes us.
Based on the relatively even distribution of comments, and the general polarity on this site recently, its probably safe to say that its too close to call. Last season was a really important litmus test. It sort of ended without an answer though. We finished a little under that 9 win mark where it seemed like most people were drawing a line in the sand pre-season, but it was caveated by the fact that most generally think the team did actually improve. I really hope we get to play a normal season this year, because I think we circled this one 3 years ago. A good season salvages the recruiting class too.
This season is make or break for Fuente. The team has to do well if A) he doesn't want the last bit of the fanbase to jump off the bandwagon and B) he wants recruits to start considering VT more. Dwight Vick says he's in the know of why VT's recruiting struggles, and he says it's because they haven't won the big game yet that people talk about for years to come. Was 2003 Miami great? Yeah. 2014 Ohio State? Yeah. Both of those games meant nothing when those teams completely tanked after. If we beat Penn State and win the Coastal, Fuente will be sitting pretty.
Beating Penn State would be huge.
Too bad we're not likely to have the signature Lane crowd for that game.
This season is make or break for Knute Rockney if he was coaching the current VT program. The program has zero juice right now. We are losing our highest rated recruits, coming off the worst recruiting year in 30 years. We lost to UVA for the first time in 15 years. There is nothing exciting about VT football right now. We are a middle of the pack ACC Coastal team. 2020 is make or break for the entire program if we ever want to get back to winning ACC titles.
Are most people on this board not excited for the potential the team has going into this season? I know there are some question marks (depth at receiver, new DC, etc.) so I don't need those listed off at me but the returning positives outweigh the question marks for the first time in years and this is the highest expectations I have for a tech team in a long time. That's something to be excited about.
I'm super excited. I'm also a VT fan. I'm talking about national excitement, recuit excitement, national "juice". VT is not a program on the rise in the eyes of basically everyone that is not a fan of the program. None of the national guys see VT as an exciting program right now. Our coach tried to bail after last season, and our top 3 commits just decommited. Actually from a national perspective, there couldn't be less juice right now. IIWII
OK yea from that perspective i agree. It seems that we're getting some respect from preseason polls but the national perception of our program is not in a good place.
I think we were all excited for last season, only to be let down, which is why I'm being careful. I think there is potential there, but the same things that have concerned me in the past offensively is still in place.
If you look at the predictions last year, you'll see 10-2 was the high end of the predictions with a lot of people settling around 8-4. The TKP staff itself predicted 10-2, 9-3, 8-4, 7-5. I think there are a lot more people in the 10-2 or bust category for this season than last year.
Not to sound cliché, but it wasn't necessarily the end result that I wasn't satisfied about but how it happened. Hooker should have been starting quarterback week 1, Duke should have never won by 35 points in Lane Stadium, and the UVA and UK losses shouldn't have happened the way they did, especially given the turnaround after the Duke game. I just felt as if the team left a lot of the table. If Hooker starts week one, we beat Boston College. If the team comes out with just a little motivation against Duke, they probably still beat us but not like that. If Corn had attacked UVA's secondary in the first half and the defense didn't let Bryce Perkins and Lynn Bowden Jr. run a 5k on them after back to back shutouts, both those games are wins. 2018 was disappointing, but I felt like that team didn't leave anything on the table. They just weren't that good.
This is an excellent explanation of why last year was so bittersweet. That stretch from Miami through Pitt was awesome, it really felt like we turned a corner. But the season was bookended by a terrible first four games and tough final two.
I still do not understand why everybody assumes Hooker could have started? And Willis wasn't the same guy at the Duke game and even admitted to downplaying his own injury to the staff. QP might have the best case for being mad about not playing in the Duke game.
Willis threw 4 picks in game 1 and never got better. Hooker didn't throw one pick till the UVA game. He also ran the read option way better than Willis which is why the offense got going. Unless Willis and Hooker were just two completely different players in August camp, it's tough for me to justify why Willis was starting.
There's a huge difference between games and practice, and none of us know what the coaches were seeing or not seeing in practice.
As mentioned practice and game can look different, but my point was that Hooker was injured preseason. Whether he was still healing or just setback by lack of reps, my understanding is that it played a huge role in the decision making. And it is easy to say Willis looked horrible against Duke, but he was also injured...arm strength was just gone.
Can you find a source on that injury? I've seen it mentioned several times during the off-season, but don't remember it being mentioned at the time.
It was never mentioned by the staff or reported, but it was rumored around the program. Pretty sure LAHokie other knowledgeable TKP members confirmed.
He also came in with a shoulder brace and obvious signs of discomfort on a few hits.
I do remember him injuring it during the ODU game, best I could find is this post from LAHokie in September
My issue is I can't see it being too serious of an injury if they're sending him out against ODU to run the ball. No point in arguing over the past too much, but it seems to me running an injured QB while up two touchdowns is pretty questionable.
Willis was the superior talent physically, but never turned the corner in terms of mentality.
Hooker would have been the better pick to start the season. Willis never got to that higher upside. Hooker also added a dimension to the running game. But that's with the benefit of hindsight.
Bryce Perkins is a story in and of himself. He had a fire burning in him after having blown it the year before, and was fairly unique in terms of saving busted plays. I'm definitely not going to miss him.
Concur in general. One thing that's worth recalling about the start of last year though is that Hazleton and Turner were injured. Moving to HH was definitely the right decision in the end, but I don't think it was necessarily that obvious at the time.
True, but I also think Hooker had much better chemistry with the tight ends than Willis. For whatever reason, Willis just wasn't getting things going with the tight ends at the beginning of the year. Maybe it was because teams knew they could focus on Keene and Mitchell because Hazelton and Turner were out.
Apologies in advance for the stream of consciousness commentary, but I look at it this way:
1) How optimistic are you that a return to regular New Year's 6 bowl appearances (formerly BCS bowls) is possible? How about being on the cusp of an occasional shot for the title?
When Beamer first left, I thought we were the proverbial "shot in the arm" (i.e. hotshot young coach) away from that. Now? I don't think we're close. We have played for the ACC title 2 times in the last decade. From 2004 to 2010 (our first 7 years in the ACC) we won 4 ACC titles, and played for a fifth. The drop in the program's status has been catastrophic. Both head coaches share some blame, and there were plenty of unexpected speed bumps for Fuente along the way, but simply put, he has not elevated our program in any meaningful/cognizable way over a 5-year period. I get that there are other factors at play here, but he just hasn't. I'm not advocating for his termination, and I actually think Michigan's termination of the dreaded Rich Rod in favor of Brady Hoke is an example of getting rid of a guy too quickly (which we can learn from), but the leash for Fuente is getting short.
2) This is not all Fuente's fault. Our recruiting staff, including beloved Hokie John Iezzi, is simply outgunned. If we take off the orange and maroon glasses, it is a joke, comparatively speaking. In this regard, Fuente is punching with a hand tied behind his back, which is further complicated by the fact that he is simply not a dynamic personality.
3) All of the 2020 issues could not have come at a worse time. We have the chance to be really good this year, but there is a ton of unpredictability based upon the lack of player development over the spring and summer. It also compounds our relative disadvantages on the recruiting trail, because it eliminates the "genuine" factor we were able to capitalize upon during official visits.
Bottom line: we need there to be football this season and we need to win big. If we go 8-4/7-5 (potential losses coming vs. Penn State, @UNC, @Louisville, @PITT, Miami) I'm not sure we ever recover. And before you say that's crazy talk, we are one Tre Turner injury away from having our leading receiver being a true sophomore, with our 2nd leading receiver being a former walk-on with 9 career catches for 121 yards. All of this with a staff who has repeatedly stated it needs 8 WRs to contribute.
I've been told (and I believe it, I just have no personal knowledge one way or the other) that Fuente's been responsible for improving the recruiting budget and increasing the number of recruiting staff during his time here. John Iezzi made sure everyone knew how bad things were when he went on the Sons of Blacksburg podcast earlier this offseason. It makes me think that VT football is in a better place if it had a head coach that didn't have a scathing SI article following him around.