So I know people have talked about a lot of this before, but hopefully I can provide a different take. Some of this was in the recruiting thread, and maybe this will be a better place to discuss some of this than the recruiting threads. And sorry for the long read - hope it's worth it.
I realize some people are more positive on Fuente and some people think he's got us heading in a bad direction for the future of the program. Most of the criticisms of Fuente have revolved around two things, on-field performance and recruiting. What I want to do is look at the on field performance but also look at what off-field decisions he's made and actions he's taken - focusing primarily on last year's performance.
Setting the stage, in each year, 2014 and 2015, Tech was 5-6 going into their final game against LOLUVA, winning by 4 and 3 points respectively against them when they were 5-7 and 4-8. Meaning we NEEDED to win against a crappy team in order to keep our bowl streak alive.
Coming in, he brought in Jerod Evans, proceeded to win the conference, won 10 games, and scored 35 points on eventual national champ Clemson (who shut out Ohio State in the first game of the playoffs). The next year, we went 9-4. I can only imagine what we might have done had Evans stayed (because Evans>Jackson). 2018 was horrible - we went 6-7. We were the youngest team in the ACC, and if I recall correctly, one of the youngest in all of the P5.
Then, last year - the start wasn't good. We lost to BC and Duke, Duke by 35 points. First decision. He takes out RW and HH starts the next week. That's on offense. In a game like Duke where you only score 10 points and the opponent (who isn't good) scores 45. Part of the problem is defense. Fuente said before he took over that he would not mess around with Bud Foster's defense. And guess what, in the ODU loss, the other one people are most vocal about, the defense gave up 49 points. Granted, we were much younger in the ODU loss, but we still gave up 49. What's the solution? What could Fuente have done? Should he have taken over the defense from Foster? Should he have canned Foster? Could you imagine that announcement? As bad as those losses were, I doubt there would have been anybody who wouldn't have called for Fuente's head (pro Fuente or otherwise) had he canned Bud. And as much as I loved Bud and his defenses, seeing him on the sideline these past couple years, he just wasn't the same fiery guy he'd been in years past. Going back to Fuente's change of QB - did Beamer ever replace a starter when there wasn't an injury? The only thing that I think was close was the shared QB duties of Sean Glennon and Tyrod Taylor.
Then we had a good run, we scored 42 against Miami (no other team scored more than 30), wins against RI and UNC, then a 1 point loss to 11-2 Notre Dame (convince me otherwise that we would have won had HH not been injured), then Wake, whose only opponent that held them to less than our 17 was Clemson who only allowed 3, then GT and Pitt, a couple of shutouts. Even though GT wasn't good, neither Clemson or Georgia held them scoreless (granted that may have been against 2nd stringers, but did our starters play the whole game on D?). Then the first painful game at the end of the season. We freakin lost to UVA. Our recent kryptonite - the mobile QB. Then another loss to Kentucky - another mobile QB.
So, in the offseason, one of the issues we'd faced - lack of RB production, Fuente lets Burden go. Foster retires and nominates JHam to be his successor. Of the problems that we had last year (and the past few years) on defense really seemed to be mobile QBs. And then, Wiles is let go and we bring in a guy from the freaking NFL with Fuente ties, who proceeds to recruit bigger guys on the D-line.
So for each of the problems (on-field) that we had last year, it seems like Fuente (or his staff or both) made decisions to fix the problems. That brings us to recruiting. Yes, recruiting has not gone well. We all hoped for DD, we wanted Tyleik. We're looking for the 4 and 5 star guys. Amusingly, one of the hires I was most "meh" about, Smith, to date has the highest rated recruit - Harvey. A lot of guys have said that winning games bring recruits. Looking at this past year, I gotta say we would have won BC with HH starting. I still don't know what happened at Duke (with the defense), but HH starting that game would have balanced things out, and I think had our defense at the end of the year played Duke (and had HH), I think we could have won that as well. We talked about Notre Dame - still gotta convince me we wouldn't have won if HH had played. That leaves us UVA and UK - and we hired an NFL D-line coach who will hopefully help with containing mobile QBs. That feels to me a lot like taking the steps needed to win more games, that would bring the better recruits.
As far as this year goes with recruits - DD flipping on us sucks, but I think most people would agree that his parting shot left a bad taste in a lot of our mouths. But people have said that Bullock looks like he was made for our offense. People said that Estime is more refined now but Christian looks like he could have a higher ceiling, and for a brand new RB coach, doesn't feel bad to me. O-line, people seem to give credit to Vice in being able to pick them, regardless of rankings, so feels okay there. WRs, Curry looks like a good pick-up, Jones looks pretty good, and we brought in Hodge in the portal (more on that later). TE - ???. LB's I know we wanted Poole, but that felt like it would be a tough one against NC State, especially with his cousin being there, but we got Etute, who people seemed to think highly of. CBs? Feels like Smith did well with Harvey (who I thought I'd seen was rated as 4 star at one point???), and two others, and pulling in Taylor in the portal. Safeties we look okay at, especially longer term if Stroman projects like his brother. The big head scratcher for me is D-line. I said somewhere else that if 18 year old recruits were purely rational, the should be 4 and 5 star guys lining up to play for a guy who was just coaching in the NFL (and was a good coach) and a guy who just recently played in the league.
Lastly, I know people have said that the portal isn't a long term solution to recruiting. And I 100% agree with that. But, as I pointed out, it seems like Fuente has taken steps towards correcting the issues we had on the field this past year, so if that translates to more wins in the future, and that's what will help with recruiting, it feels like we're going in the right direction, so fixing near term problems of players leaving early or not having the production we want (Farley and RBs for example) seems like a good short term solution.
Those are my thoughts. And I honestly feel good about the steps Fuente has taken. Yes, like I said, the recruiting misses are very frustrating, but feel like we're heading in a direction to win more games and then hopefully not have those misses. What do you guys think about decisions he's made? Any other good ones? Bad ones I'm forgetting about?
Comments
You are a brave man to start this thread. I hope it stays on topic and civil but given recent history, I have my doubts.
Yeah, sometimes foolishly brave and I engage when I should know better lol. Just feel like people are focusing a lot on results without looking at the actions he's taking to try to change those results. If I wasn't seeing those actions, I sure as hell would be a lot more concerned with where we are and where we're headed.
The biggest things for me (aside from recruiting) are:
1) Play design/playcalling
2) Execution against inferior competition.
3) RB usage
4) Failing to generate excitement around the program
5) Inability to choose/develop/retain a starting QB.
6) His public flirting with other schools
As discussed many times, and though many people agree with you, your number 6 is about ridiculous.
Your number 5 isn't for lack of trying.
I'm not sure what to say about number 4 other than "Just win, baby".
Number 3, I think you'll find some agreement here.
Number 2, I think most of us should agree with.
Number 1, I think has been a topic since I started following the program, and that was long before Fuente arrived. There has been remarkable improvement in the offense since then.
1) you don't like jet sweeps okay
2)He addressed that, so what's your rebuttal?
3)What don't you like?
4)That is not a head coaches job
5)Hendon Hooker?
6)Because he did that, he was able to hire more support staff to hopefully improve recruiting
6) Correct. I think people forget that Beamer flirted with UNC and used that to get more money for his assistants.
He didn't just flirt, he drove to the motel where he was meeting the new chick, went in got her worked up and said " I'm going to go get us some ice" and then just never went back to the room.
So what you're saying is that he turned Baylor into a WAP?
No that was Frank with UNC.
There's no evidence that this is what happened
Have you read Frank's book? He says himself he went to UNC and agreed to take the job. Told them himself. But when he drove back to Tech he couldn't pull the trigger.
I'm talking about Fuente
Neither of us were, this was about Frank and how he went even further in leaving Tech but it isn't viewed by anyone as anything bad.
My mistake. In that case it's because he has clout and we owed him for what he did for the school no matter what he did at that point. He elevated the program.
Frank actually accepted the job at UNC.
And then changed his mind.
Prof Torgerson also confirmed this in his at VT. He told the story every year in his class. It's quite well documented that Frank had a handshake deal to leave VT.
*ice cream
Beamer has a lot more leverage and loyalty in the fanbase.
I lost Fuente with the Baylor thing. Even if it was adding resources as the underlying issue, he didn't have the chips to play that hand. Win something before you play that.
See I don't Get this. If Beamer had done that in the modern era of cable sports channels, twitter and reddit no way he still holds same respect. He has just taken a team to a NC game and was looking to leave for a bigger paycheck and better resources. Meanwhile the recruiting for a team that had just finished 2nd in the nation was outside the top 15.
So a guy is a proven winner, considers a higher profile job, turns it down and comes back to his alma mater.
Vs
A guy who isn't a proven winner flirts with a job that is only marginally better (if at all) at an institution with questionable morals and agrees to return to the school where he seems an uneasy water bottle crushing fit.
He just took his team to the NC, had a life altering player coming back at QB and was about to bolt for a team that had won 10 games in last two seasons. Yes UNC has a much better brand name but they weren't some top tier school. Like I said Beamer in the modern era did that and he would have been raked over the coals just like Fuente.
UNC>>>>Baylor
Were you even alive when Beamer talked to UNC? Because you're comparing UNC now to Baylor now as opposed to UNC 20 years ago to Baylor now. And just what are you basing that off of? Baylor has money and all the things money can buy and just won 13 games under Rhule.
It's actually an apt comparison. Mack Brown had just left for Texas, and I think at UNC he had two top 10 finishes in 3 years, 5 top 25 finishes in 7 (I'm going off memory, but it's something like that).
My bad - I always remembered Miami being our big rival, even in the ACC. I think UNC has just been not good since I started paying attention, which was after Mack Brown left. But, like I said, Baylor did just win 13 games last season and still came to interview Fuente.
Baylor also went 7-6 in 2016, 1-11 in 2017, and 7-6 in 2017.
They were trash for about 20 years, had success off the back of RG3 which Art Briles was able to sustain for a few years because he suppressed the terrible things his players were doing. Matt Rhule obviously was able to build the program back up, but I still think this is abnormal for them and they will return to the fold.
Last year they beat Texas and played Oklahoma close which they deserve credit for, but they also only beat Iowa state, Texas tech, west Virgnia, and TCU by a combined 14 points. The big12 (Oklahoma) was also by far the weakest team in the playoff. I just don't put a lot of stock in them.
The UNC football brand- that can't draw flies in their own stadium- is vastly, vastly overrated.
Still better than Baylor
You're not looking at this from a recruit's POV or a coach. An 18 year old recruit probably only knows the last 12ish years of CFB. Baylor's record over the last 12 years is pretty damn good. Coaches see Baylor as a private school that will pay out the ass, and because it's a private school, no one will ask questions about how their spending that money.
I think once you get passed the top 10-15 jobs, you can make an argument for 15-30 based on what a specific coach wants.
Because it's not just "football brand" that's the thinking that has Tech with an athletic logo and a academic logo. It's ONE brand for the entire school, academics, basketball, football, alumni networking etc.
You seem to be deriding Beamer for the exact things I'm lauding him for. He was successful. He had the credit to play. Fuente doesn't.
So I doubt this discussion is going to end in an agreement.
I don't know how you definitively say that until the rest of the story is written.
It's about when the events took place
I promise you that if Fuente course corrects and gets the program where it needs to be, nobody will care about a 24 hr flirtation with Baylor and will once again be worried that a big dog might poach Fuente away.
I also promise you that if Beamer had spiraled back to mediocrity just after the UNC deal, he would have been driven out of town and criticised as only riding Vick's coattails.
History is better written when the story is complete.
Big "if"
No doubt
What (if any) things do you like about Fuente? I am genuinely curious.
I liked that he was going to bring up-tempo to our offense but I don't think we have really stuck to that. I like that he seems fairly straight forward and honest. I like his use of tight ends and H backs, but I wish we used them more. I've liked the staffs ability to get plenty of good playmaking wide receivers. I like that he's hands off with the defense. I like that he's prioritized building a good offensive line for us. I like that he creates competition between quarterbacks, but I wish he picked his guy (the right guy) sooner and focused more of the reps and attention on them.
I think one reason he hasn't gone more up-tempo (and I think he said something along these lines once) was he didn't want to go to fast to give the defense a chance to rest. Like if the offense could score in a minute each time and then the defense had to be on the field for 4 minutes, they'd be gassed by the end. I think in some instances, they were just trying to take measured increments down the field rather than long breaking passes or runs each time. The issue with that is that you need a QB who is good enough to execute that.
I can't say that isn't why, but that seems counterintuitive. That would be like giving up first downs on defense to let the offense rest. And I don't think shaving 10 seconds off per play would really give the defense a significantly longer break. I think you have to plan on giving them a break by getting first downs and being smart with the ball.
He doesn't go up tempo because the offense isn't good enough to score.
That's an issue that needs addressing
Wholeheartedly agree. My biggest beef about Fuente is that he hasn't brought in the horses he needs to run his system successfully in the ACC.
My worry is that he brought in the people he wanted but the problem is his system doesn't work in the ACC.
You mean other than 2016 when we were in the conference championship against the future National champion and did better than Ohio State? And see what I wrote about having a better defense and being able to stop a mobile QB. In the games HH started we put up a fair number of points.
2016 wasn't his people other than the QB.
But they were the same people who just BARELY squeaked out a win against a crappy LOLUVA team to remain bowl eligible in both 2015 and 2016. And did he run his system with those people, or did he run Beamer's system with those people? The point wasn't about the people, it was about his system being able to win in the ACC.
1) I get the play design/playcalling. I think hearing the interview with QP and HH where they said Cornelson gives them plays they feel comfortable executing might have shed light on that to some extent. In addition, I know Fuente has said he values ball security. Think Logan Thomas and how often he turned the ball over inside our own 30. Ugh. So I feel like I may be reading in that they might also be limiting playcalling until they're more comfortable with their QB (more in #6)
2) Some of that, as I pointed out is defensively. Some I think is also the QB. We're getting a new defensive coordinator, more experience, and I think HH will perform better overall against all competition than JJ or RW did. If we have another performance where we lose to an FCS or really crappy P5 team with HH under center, I may very well change my mind in a big way. I guess my prediction is with HH available and QP and BB in the fold, I can't see us doing bad on offense. And hopefully JHam will have the defense playing at a high level an we don't have any slip ups like those again.
3)Agree, and honestly, I think part of that has been O-line, which seems like it's improving, but also the RBs themselves. People gave McClease a lot of credit last year, but I wasn't sold. He had good runs, but I'm not sure that was due to him or him just getting better holes from the line. There were still times where he'd run up to a defensive player and do that little shoulder shake thing that I guess was supposed to fool them, then get tackled, but don't think he had a lot of plays where he really eluded people. I think in his limited time playing, King had some better runs where he got stopped briefly, but was still able to make something out of it. And we've got Gary who is still recovering, we brought in Blackshear and Herbert, and Christian looks like a good long-term prospect. Hopefully we get some good production there.
4)True - I felt like the videos with the players and coaches were good and would have liked to see him build off that. Out of all the things I think he's done with steps in the right direction, this still seems to be the one that is lacking most. Granted, I'm assuming wins would help this as well.
5)I don't know how much was totally Fuente. He brought in Evans, but had JJ in the program and RW came in. Evans was great, JJ and RW not so much (I think RW was better than JJ), but they filled the gap until HH. It'll be interesting to see if HH can take a step forward. I know RW didn't really take a step forward, but don't think he had as high a ceiling as HH anyway.
6)That sucks, but I think we were spoiled by Beamer. I don't know if we'll have any other coach stay long term. Ironically, I feel like if there's any coach that WOULD stay long term, assuming he starts getting us to conference titles and some playoff berths, Fuente would be one that might stay, with very few other schools that could pull him away. If that does happen, let's hope JHam is a freaking amazing coach and could step up - having an Alum is usually the best way to keep someone long term.
On #2, I firmly believe when we line up against FCS or 95% of G5 teams we should be able to run a simple power run game and just grind it out down the field. Our players are bigger, faster, stronger. I think we get too cute. I would be happy to watch a full game of nothing but simple dives, counters, powers, and traps all game long and just wear them out 5 yards at a time. When they stack the box, hit them with something outside then go back to the grind.
1. Playcalling has seemed to go more towards those strengths of the players we have. I cant count the number of games under O'Cainspring where we'd run the slower power back off tackle and the scat back on a dive.
2. Kind of agree, kind of disagree. He couldn't beat chinballs, but looking at kinda the poster year of bad losses (2018), we scored 35 in the loss to ODU, that was on the D not being able to get a stop.
3. Agree, but how much of that was on the inconsistency of the OL having 3 coaches in as many years, it seemed like. Also having only 6 RB recruits in his first 4 years with most not working out hasn't helped.
4. Maybe for the casual fan. I consider myself a hardcore fan, and I get excited every week.
5. Unlike RB, 6 QBs in 4 years is not bad (7 if you count Willis). We had a named starting QB every year, with the plan that they were the guy. Early departures (Evans), injuries (Jackson/Hooker), and poor decision making (Willis) derailed what plans were in place.
6. Every coach flirts if they're good.
I think you're getting more of this right than wrong.
I'm always positive going into the season. I think the two biggest knocks against him are 1) results on the field due to 2) poor recruiting. It looks like he's at least trying to fix our horrible lack of run production
My biggest two complaints with Fuente is his RB recruiting and production (nothing RB related has been good under Fuente's tenure) and his complete inability to manage the media. He seriously needs a PR person and to do everything that PR person says.
There are many people who agree with you, we just aren't as loud because it's tiring to try to have conversations with people who throw out their opinion and double down even though stats and facts state otherwise.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you have posted and I'm excited to see the next few years. Hopefully recruiting will follow suit after a couple of good years in the W/L column.
I actually enjoy this discussion, so I'm looking forward to reading this thread.
At a high level, I believe it's tough to decouple Fuente's failures from circumstances that are out of his control. I'm not convinced that there's a coach we could have gotten who would've done better.
I'll probably come back later tonight or tomorrow and update this post with more details.
UPDATE:
The most important thing Fuente has done here is re-calibrate expectations within the athletic department, ultimately resulting in a support staff that is still expanding. By all accounts, our athletic department was woefully behind the curve when Beamer retired.
I personally love his philosophy on expected outcomes (I grew up playing tennis and poker, and in both situations I spent a lot of time thinking about expected results, and it kind of bled into how I analyze decisions in my personal life, so when Fuente talked about expected outcomes on the day 1 press conference, I was all about it... but I digress). I think the way he built the defensive staff was genius - he took a calculated risk in hiring JHam, and he put together a staff that mitigated that risk in every way possible. All this goes to show that he's cool and calculated. Some people complain that he doesn't show emotion - I think that's bullshit - I'll take a leader who's level headed and 'boring' any day over someone who gets caught in the heat of the moment.
From a coaching standpoint, I think he's pretty good. No boneheaded time management calls. I personally like the aggressive calls going for it on 4th or going for 2pt conversion. Trick plays are really well executed and called at the perfect time - this tells me he knows those plays are important enough to practice, but also that they need to be used sparingly.
A common criticism is that his assistants weren't ready to coach P5 football. Wiggins got snatched up by bama, so he was clearly ready. Shibest has been fine; perhaps slightly overpaid, but not by much. Zohn was a holdover, but didn't really pull his weight (on the field, or in recruiting towards the end). Vice has proven himself as a coach and recruiter IMO. Cornelson is the one coach still on the roster I have a complaint with, but I recognize he's (1) occupying the most scrutinized coaching position in football and (2) there's not many good OC's out there for $500k/year.
This brings us to recruiting... my number 1 complaint about the Fuente era. By all accounts, Fuente & co. have made a ton of unforced errors on the recruiting trail in the last 4 years. Something is getting lost here and we have to turn it around. In college football, you have to be able to sell your vision. Either the staff can't sell it, or recruits aren't interested in buying it. Whatever the case, it has to be fixed.
It sucks to see this season ruined by COVID, because this was going to be the season where we saw if Fuente knows what he's doing, or if he's really in over his head. Depending on the financial hit that this season brings, we may be stuck with Fuente for a bit longer, for better or for worse.
Edit #2:
I think you also have to recognize that in a 2 year period, VT replaced our president (for the first time in 14 years), our AD (for the first time in 16 years), and (obviously) our head football coach (for the first time in 26 years). In all three instances, the school brought in someone who was a complete outsider to the university. That's a lot of new people to fill the three most visible roles at the school in a very short amount of time, especially for a school that was so used to (1) stability and (2) hiring from within. I speculate that, had this turnover not happened so quickly, someone would have stopped the rebrand of the VT logo, or at least gotten someone from athletics in the room.
On top of the changes at VT, college football was growing pretty rapidly leading up to Beamer's retirement. The playoff was new, and it was still tough to predict the selection committee's behavior. Fans across the sport still weren't educated on how money helps an athletic department, and realistically, most coaches weren't really great at allocating money either. No one was on TSL or TKP or Twitter complaining that we needed support staff, or about Hokie Club being behind - I don't think anyone at VT realized the industry was changing fast; we all thought having a huge staff was something that just Nick Saban did to improve his work/life balance, not a necessity for recruiting.
When you realize that Fuente came to VT at a major inflection point for both the school and the sport, it's not shocking that he's faced challenges.
+1
Tangential note: If you haven't already read it, your interest in poker and probabilistic reasoning makes me think you'd really enjoy Nate Silver's book The Signal and The Noise. Really interesting and insightful read.
Adding it to my reading list!
Nobody on this site or in the profession ever described Whit Babcock or VT as "woefully behind the curve" on anything until Justin Fuente signed the 70th ranked class and got stomped by Duke. Nobody. If VT athletics was woefully behind the curve, that is on Whit Babcock- who predated Fuente and is widely regarded as one of the best ADs out there. Doesn't add up. Do we have Ohio State money? no. But it's- another- excuse. The Hudl nonsense is just window dressing and irrelevant. Show me where Whit had his head in the sand or withheld resources from the football team. You won't find it.
First of all, it's not an 'excuse' - that would assume (by definition) that Fuente's poor performance is 'excused' due to circumstances - I'm not condoning VT/Fuente's performance, but rather, trying to offer a substantive explanation.
And yes, I do think Whit shares some blame. He's made great hires, but in 6 years, there's still a ton of confusion about the Hokie Club, how to donate, etc. In FY 2018, VT Athletics raised $22M in donations. That's less than Louisville ($35M), Clemson ($40M), IU ($25M), Iowa ($30M), UW ($35M), WVU ($30M), Kansas ($27M), Etc. We're pretty average in P5 in terms of revenue, and we're pretty average in terms of football as well.
I think most of us can understand how results can lag actions by a couple years, and that results rarely change overnight. By the time Blockbuster knew they were fucked by Netflix, it was too late. I don't think the gap between VT and the top quarter of P5 football is nearly that large, but I do think there's a gap, it took time to realize it, and it's going to take time to recover. I'm also not convinced that there was a coach out there who we could've gotten for the same price who would have done much better.
EDIT: to expand on this point, I have no interest in 'Fuente good! Fuente Bad!' commentary - it's boring. If you think he's so bad that he needs to go, then recommend a reasonable replacement who would come to VT and who we could afford - if you can't think of one we could afford, well, that means that Whit is at least somewhat to blame.
This is very tangential but I'm sure someone smarter than me can make my analogy work. People blame Blockbuster for not buying Netflix, which obviously in hindsight was a giant mistake. But in the same year of the proposed Netflix deal (2000) they had already entered a contract to offer video-on-demand over a broadband network - seven years before Netflix introduced streaming.
The only problem was the contract was with Enron and the technology didn't work. So they were actually ahead of the curve but had backed the wrong horse.
It wasn't just a problem with Enron; (1) the market wasn't ready for streaming in 2000 (Broadband wasn't ready, people didn't have ways to stream over TV, and the market wasn't used to watching anything on a small screen) and (2) Netflix's original differentiating factor was not streaming; it was the subscription model and the recommendation model.
And, tbh, I think this analogy helps further my point; you have to understand the mechanism that drive success. It's not enough to just roll out a flashy offense, or hire more people. You have to have alignment throughout your entire organization, and everyone has to understand how their work fits into the end goal.
In this Blockbuster/Netflix analogy, I think VT could be likened to NBC, which was the last major network to go to market with a DTC/OTT service. They're late to the party, but still in the game. Time will tell if we were too slow, or if we can make up lost ground.
To your last point, who thought Fuente was a "welp that's who VT could afford" hire at the time? It was universally lauded as a home run by Whit. So why have that mentality now? If Fu get's dusted by UVA and BC, etc and is fired, why do we have to go on the cheap?
I agree - it was a great hire, and every one agreed. There's two differences between now and then:
We spent ~$6 mil in 2016 on Fuente and staff. In 2020, Fuente & co are getting a combined $7.7M. I'm asking you to find a better staff for $7.7M who would leave their current job(s) for VT? Give me a specific answers with names. Here's a list of head coach salaries from 2019. Here's a list of assistant coach salaries from 2019.
This is great work. Well done.
I disagree with this point. I detailed in my comment above why, but I'll go into it again because it's something I feel strongly about. In 2017, we were playing Georgia Tech. We were down 14-3 in the second before scoring a touchdown to make it 14-9. Most coaches kick the extra point in that situation. Second quarter, one possession game, never know when you might need the one point you lose from not taking the sure extra point; it's a no brainer. Fuente chooses to go for two which we don't get. Then, we take a 22-21 lead in the fourth quarter. Of course, we have to go for two now because we need it to be a field goal deficit. We don't get it. However, it ultimately didn't matter because GT scored a touchdown rather than a field goal to win it 28-22. Can you imagine how bad that decision in the second quarter would have looked had Tech ended up losing 24-22 rather than 28-22?
I remember in the Boston College game in 2018, BC had 3rd and 8 and got a holding call that would have made it 2nd and 21. Fuente declined the penalty, however, to keep it at 3rd and 8. Many of you might wonder what's wrong with that. He was just making it to where we needed one play to get off the field. If BC had had 2nd and 21, they would have had to have gained 13 yards to get back to 3rd and 8, something I don't think was going to happen. Now, instead, they only needed eight yards to get the first down. Just little things like that concern me.
Then there are the decision to kick field goals to go up by six in the fourth quarter rather than going for it and trying to go up by two possessions, brought up by VTMiner. We saw it against Notre Dame. We had the ball at ND's 12 yard line, 3rd and 10. We run it with QP, which is okay, as long as it's two down territory and you're just trying to make the fourth down play more manageable. This was not the case, though. On 4th and 5 at ND's seven yard line leading by 3 with a little over 13 minutes left, here comes the field goal team to go from being up one possession to... being up one possession. Tech ended up losing this game by one point. You're on the road, you're the underdog, you have a quarterback capable of throwing the fade or running between the tackles: you have to nut up and try to win the game there. ND had struggled on offense all day. What are the chances they score twice before the end of the game, especially when they have to become more one dimensional? Not very high. If we don't get it, They have to go 95 yards to take the lead, 30 less than that to think about tying it, and their kicker was not great that day. Same thing with the Kentucky game: 3rd and 12, Hooker runs for nine yards to make it 4th and 3 at the UK nine. We're going for it right? Surely we aren't just happy to settle for the field goal and go from being up one possession to still being up one possession right? Wrong. Out comes the field goal team. You go up by two possessions on Kentucky in the fourth, game over. If you don't get it, Kentucky has to go over 90 yards to take the lead, at least 60 to tie. I'll take those odds. Bowden Jr was not a good thrower. Instead, we go up by one possession, and Kentucky only needed one. They got it, we lose. It was a bowl game for crying out loud. Take a chance.
I like the decision against GT. 14-9 is a 5 point deficit - either way that's 1 TD without a PAT. If you convert, you decrease the lead to a field goal. If you fail, you're in the same place (down by less than a TD, more than an FG) as you would be if you take the PAT. Personally, I think this is right call.
Regarding BC - I assume this is the play you were talking about, at the start of the 3rd qtr:
Again, good call IMO - our defense had played a shit ton of snaps already. Taking the 3rd & 8 means one less snap they have to play, and, if they get a stop, positive momentum. Similar risk between the two situations (two downs to get 21 yards or one down to get 8). Given the context of the game, I don't think it's a bad call.
Regarding ND - Again, I think it's the right call. Our Defense is playing incredible all day. Their offense is playing terrible. Our offense is looking mediocre at best. Why not put the best DC in the country, on a day when the team is playing well in a position to win the game? TBH, I blame Foster for that more than Fuente - The defense didn't play to win.
Kentucky - I 100% agree with you.
At the end of the day, these aren't obvious decisions, and it's easy to criticize these in hindsight. But if Fuente can make the right call 75% of the time, that's a pretty good ratio.
I still think that the second quarter is entirely too early to be chasing points. I am in the camp of only going for two in the fourth quarter, maybe the third if you're down by 24 (8*3=24). Funny enough, in the 2016 Belk Bowl, Fuente did not go for two after making it 24-6.
For BC, I can see that. I still think I would have made it 2nd and 21 rather than 3rd and 8. Again, BC would have had to have gained 13 yards to get that 3rd and 8 back. I don't think that was going to happen. I'm not sure one extra play would have made as much of a difference, but him denying the penalty didn't make a difference, so I digress.
ND still seems like the wrong decision to me. ND had had some success moving the ball up to that point. Dax had an interception with our backs up against the wall in the red zone. They fumbled it at the end of the half at the goal line, and we took it back for the touchdown. They very well could have been up 28-7 going into the half had the defense not clutched up and ND not made a couple mistakes. I don't think it was unwise to think "hey, maybe we should go up by two possessions while we're inside the 10 because these guys can definitely make one more drive down the field."
I like Fuente, **shrugs**, carry on!
I appreciate your optimism. I wish I wasn't so bitter, but I am what I am.
Question: If we go 5-6 or 6-5 this year, do your opinions change?
So I know there are the "no excuses" crowd. To some extent that's fair. I think, as of now, he has what he needs to have a good to great showing. I'm going to caveat that HEAVILY if a large number of players start opting out. I don't know if that would happen before the season was cancelled, but unless something really bizarre happened like a bunch of our players opted out but other schools didn't. But I serious doubt that happens. Yeah, if we go 5-6 or 6-5, my opinions would change. Again, unless the offense was scoring like 50 points a game but the defense was allowing 60 and Fuente fired JHam (again, don't think that would happen, but it would be another scenario where, if he fired JHam and got another coordinator, he would have been doing what was necessary to fix the on-field issues, and also assuming the offense was doing well enough).
If we go 5-6 this season, I'm unleashing the full wrath of DCWilson.
The things imo that is hurting us with recruiting right now is Fuente's record the last two years is 14-12 and during this time we have one NFL pick. We know that we have had a young team the last two years but when recruits are being told this by other schools do you think 16-18 year olds are doing research as to why? Let's hope that Farley is a first round pick and that some of our other guys get drafted the next year or two. We also need to remember that Teerlinck and Tapp have been on staff less than a year so they are behind on establishing relationships with the 21 class, I still have high hopes that they will start to land some blue chippers.
That's a great point about NFL picks - hard to get players drafted if hardly anybody is older than a junior. And I get what you're saying about relationships with the 21 class, I guess I would have thought that having a guy who had coached in the NFL would count for more than not having that relationship. But maybe there is a certain level of comfort recruits want. To have Tyleik Williams go to Ohio State when he had CBs for us and having Teerlinck on staff makes me scratch my head. yeah, Ohio State has a good program, but you'd have a really hard time convincing me he'll get better development there (unless they argue lack of draft picks from Tech, which given new coaches is and new types of players that are being recruited isn't a good argument, but again, they're giving that to 16-18 year olds).
The difference is that you're pitching potential (VT) against precedent (Ohio State). Teams like Ohio State, Alabama, and Clemson have been producing NFL DL consistently for years. As a VT fan, it's easy for us to be excited about the potential of TnT, but they haven't sent any any DL to the NFL yet. For as much as I agree that between an NFL DL coach and a former NFL DE we should be able to develop a lot of NFL DL, we don't have the proof of concept yet to pitch to recruits. We are pitching the future. Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, etc. they just point to a graphic with a bunch of names with 1st and 2nd round beside them. These young guys likely watched NFL drafts where plenty of Ohio State guys names were getting called. So overall, I still think the proven track records have an easier pitch to sell than we do.
However, we have some dudes on the roster and in this class (Nelson, Carroll) who will hopefully one day help us provide that precedent pitch as well.
True - good point. Hopefully we will get some of our current line guys to go pro so it's not just potential anymore.
IMO ironically the thing hurting our recruiting the worst right now is that our recruiting is bad. We saw it with DD. Why would you want to be the 2nd blue chip in 3 years to go to a certain school? Isn't that a red flag?
Thank you for your thoughtful post, and positive outlook! It's refreshing, and I pretty much agree with everything you said. Go Hokies!
We hired a guy that was a big up and coming name. We have experienced some up and coming growing pains. I do think Fuente is smart and is learning from his mistakes. I think Fuente after a course correction is still a better option than anybody else we pull in (especially if we don't live up to our contracted terms on time to get it right).
so much this. I don't know who else is out there that we could legitimately pull in that would be an upgrade. I've always asked when people complain who we should have gone with or who can we get now that would be better. I have never gotten an answer.
Insightful and fair. A good write up. I have a few concerns with Fuente:
1) the 2016 and 2017 seasons were largely dependent on a Frank Beamer-laden roster. You mentioned that the 2014 and 2015 seasons were mediocre—and they were— but in those two seasons, we lost three games by at least two scores: two to Miami and one to Ohio State, and two of those were without Brewer. In the 2018 and 2019 seasons, there were the same number of losses as '14 and '15, but eight of them were by at least two scores. That is reason for concern.
2) his game management is just weird to me sometimes. We went for two in the second quarter of the GT game back in 2017 because he wasn't sure how many more possessions the offense was going to get. Because of this, they had to go for two again in the 4th just to go up by 3. Ultimately, it didn't matter, but can you imagine if we had lost that game 24-22? Also, there was the timeout management at the end of the first half of the Kentucky game. There have been other instances of weird timeout usage. Just some stuff he does with in terms of game management just doesn't make sense to me.
3) recruiting. Yes, recruiting. We were told 2020 was going to be quality of quantity and that the 2021 class was going to be much better on paper. Neither of those things happened or have happened yet. 2020 had neither quality or quantity as far as the numbers go, and 2021 has been more quantity and over quality. If the staff's plan from the start had been to grab a bunch of underrated three stars who look like they have a high ceiling, I wouldn't be as weary. However, that was not the plan at first. DD was on board until we couldn't land any other big guys, and then he jumped ship. Since then, I feel as if we've been scrambling. I will say, I like a lot of the guys that we've gotten in terms of long term potential. I hope they can supplement it with higher ranked kids in the future. If you want to beat Clemson in the ACC Championship game, you're going to need some jimmy's and joe's.
Edit: shored up the part about the 2017 GT game.
If I could give a million turkey legs to point #2, I would. The infuriating field goal calls when up by 3 should be added to this as well.
Right. I knew I was leaving something important out.
The one that bug me the most was losing to GT on the failed Hail Mary to Cam
I was trying to find the video for that sequence in the 2017 game. Back to back deep throws on 3rd/4th and 1, I'm pretty sure I was screaming at the TV for that.
As I mentioned back in the spring, I would defend Fuente to the hilt, until I saw him and the staff having dinner with Devyn Ford and Quinn Carroll after the 2019 spring game at Kabuki's. Bud Foster, who has carried the reputation as being a lousy recruiter in VT fan narrative for the last couple of decades, was the one pitching Ford the entire time. Bud was next to him, arm around him, chatting him up. Meanwhile, Fuente and Vice were back to the wall, whispering to eachother, and not engaging Ford, Carroll, or Carroll's family (who was at the dinner.) He looked uncomfortable (I imagine I looked the same way at a school dance when I was nervous about asking someone to rock gingerly side to side as "Strawberry Wine" plays in the background.)
It looked like he was the last person that was the CEO, the figurehead, the person who makes you feel like you were part of something important. And, that may be completely unfair, as I didn't see any interaction he has had with a recruit, before or since. It was a snapshot, a microcosm, a moment in time. However, given the perceived importance and investment VT's football program made in those two players, it startled me how disengaged and uncomfortable he seemed. At that moment, I lost a lot of confidence in the direction of the program. I think he stands for the right things in how VT has to build (toughness, good evaluations, player development). I just don't know if he can build those things, make his case for getting the best talent THAT FITS what he wants (look at the record for not landing top of the board targets which were under the radar with other programs that later came in and stole those kids away), and effectively change the culture in the administration. All three have to happen, and right now 1/3 is happening.
I hope I am wrong. I really do. I want this staff to succeed. But, it is going to take more than just being a good x's and o's coach to make the program a top of the line ACC school. It is going to require a coach who can use strength of personality to overcome the lack of resources, lack of brand strength, and lack of enthusiasm which currently exists. And I have doubts right now if he can elevate those weak areas.
French - I'd forgotten you shared this. Yeah, something like this would make me question things as well. Hopefully it was an anomaly - like maybe Bud had told Fuente he was considering retiring, Vice was having a personal issue Fuente was helping him with or something. Regardless, yeah, that's a bad look. The only thing that would comfort me is how many of the players who've said they like him.
Who knows, maybe the future will look something like this: JHam turns out to be an incredible coach, improving the defense, we win more games, given the combo of Fuente and JHam, Fuente rides that success to his dream job at Oklahoma, JHam becomes head coach, and being an alum, stays for 30 years, bringing us to the playoffs and winning a few national championships and we bring in 5 star talent like it was nothing and bringing us to the blue blood status we all want. That's the future I'll want/expect lol
Heart issues notwithstanding, this is just makes me more upset that he didn't get a shot as the Head Coach. I really think he would have done what Mike Young did in regards to staffing...
I've been thinking this post and anecdote about Fuente since I read it. As a former guy who used to hold the wall up at school dances, I can relate.
But, professionally, I've spent a lot of time in hiring/cultural fits/team dynamics. The introvert label is thrown at Fuente a lot as a detriment. But it's my feeling that introvert/extrovert are descriptions to label how people find their energy. That doesn't mean you can't wade in the other pool. In particular, you begin to understand how to access your opposite introvert/extrovert side with maturation. Maybe that's the case for Fuente?
I definitely get my energy by classic introversion practices. But I realized early on that being an extrovert in a field full of introverts was a differentiator. I taught myself to speak and write. I volunteer for things I know make everyone else uncomfortable. They don't make me comfortable either, but I know it helps to do them so I work on it.
I wouldn't say I'm optimistic about how it will turn out for Fuente, but him building a staff that complements his weaknesses and growing himself personally is certainly possible. I would say Nick Saban is a classic introvert who knows that he needs to sell sometimes. Probably a similar path for Bud Foster. I wonder if Fuente would still be that guy leaning up against the wall. Maybe he's grown. Maybe his staff changes are a sign that he needs to buttress his own personality.
Anyway, an interesting anecdote that got me thinking.
@HokieDoug96, question:
You've mentioned that bringing in Deerlick and Tapp to coach the DL might help us devise a plan to contain mobile quarterbacks - of all the things you said (all of which were eminently reasonable), this is one that stuck out to me. Forgive me if someone else asked this, I didn't read the thread before commenting.
Deerlick is an NFL guy, and the NFL doesn't have the proliferation of running quarterbacks that college does. I think it would be reasonable to say that his NFL experience might be a negative when it comes to finding ways to stop mobile quarterbacks, as he has rarely had to deal with them. After all, Foster was the best in the business, had faced tons of running quarterbacks in the past, and we still got burned regularly by them.
So my question to you (and the turkey gallery) is why you're optimistic about this particular aspect of Teerlick's potential to reverse these fortunes.
A short 2cents from me:
- No system is immune to the effects of a great mobile QB. At least not without sacrifice in other key areas.
- I think he is basing that off of French's film review about the way Teerlinck's DL's attempt to collapse the pocket, which is more akin to what Venables' does with his DL at Clemson. Perhaps this strategy will lead to more QB's getting "stuck" in the pocket and not having as many lanes to escape.
This is one - being able to collapse the pocket, but also having bigger linemen that could potentially impose their will on an O-line. Wiles' philosophy was smaller guys with more twitch that can get you penetration. But it seemed like lately he wasn't getting the talent that would make that philosophy work. So then you have smaller linemen getting pushed around the field by the O-line, allowing holes for RBs or the QB. I think a bigger line lets you be more versatile - the small line you really have to stick to trying carry out your philosophy even if your guys aren't a great fit for it.
I would argue that they are not prolific in the NFL because the players and coaches are better at stopping it.
Speed of LB at the NFL level is insane compared to college.
I think most of that speed is from play recognition and instincts, not that they suddenly get faster once they get to the NFL. So it goes back to coaching
I don't think it's that any one player gets faster, but you get the fastest players with the best instincts when 32 NFL teams can pull from the best of the 130 fbs teams, not to mention that players leave college every year whereas they don't necessarily leave the NFL. So the talent pool for linebacker is better than any one team in college, same for every position. So in college, it may be more difficult to stop a mobile QB because each team he faces only gets so much talent and it does rely on coaching, but in the NFL, you get the best talent that can also benefit from coaching.
This article is reassuring in its measure and I can agree with the optimistic scope.
But, I have had concerns. The up tempo hasn't revealed itself. I know there's a camp that feels the O hasn't been good enough or knowledgeable enough to execute the up tempo, but surely there's a series or two that can be schemed for the players to run gasser on the opposition at least a couple of times, right? I mean every team has a 2-minute drill.
I've been concerned about RB. Fuente's system doesn't lend itself to a "feature" back. RB's want to run, not block so I can't see a 4/5* RB wanting in the system.
A secret fear of mine has been that we got a coach that was successful using G5 schemes that utilized borderline P5 talent against true G5 talent and that it won't translate at the next level.
Recruiting is what we've all seen. I'd like to see better. We've lost some jewels, got a surprise get or two, and frankly celebrated some head scratchers. We picked someone up recently that has a great body of work,...but we were the only P5 to offer,... that's a little different to me.
And the whole Baylor thing,.... I don't begrudge him looking, after all if nobody else wanted him why would we. It was the timing. Had he gone it would have put us over a hard barrel and cost what recruits we had. So whether it was genuine or tactical, it left a bad taste.
But alas, here we are in Nowhereland with a Nowhereman making all his nowhere plans because the season is a pass - If he runs the table it's a great story but there won't be a true NC this season and if he bombs,... there's a rest button because the season doesn't really count and nobody loses eligibility. 😐
I've been concerned about RB. Fuente's system doesn't lend itself to a "feature" back. RB's want to run, not block so I can't see a 4/5* RB wanting in the system.
I didn't expect him to get big time tailback talent coming in, and he didn't have it at Memphis. What he had at Memphis were the most talented guys consistently busting their ass for him- and that hasn't always happened in Blacksburg. I don't know why, but I don't consistently seeing all the skill guys selling out the way they did for the Tigers- and that is what makes the offense better. If everyone goes full tilt and everyone is a potential threat, it makes the offense very difficult to defend. When the defense can eliminate 1-2 guys every snap because they aren't a threat, it makes a misdirection based offense much easier to defend. See Johnson, Paul.
I remember hearing the following story a while ago. When Danny Pearman came to VT after being at Alabama, somebody asked him what the difference was coaching at Tech compared to the Tide. And allegedly he said, "At Virginia Tech, I don't have to kiss a player's ass to get him to play." (somewhat paraphrased. Been a while.)
Have we lost that edge? How do you get it back?
So I have to ask, does that not lend itself to the G5 scheme with borderline P5 talent? He had guys that were smiled at by P5, but passed and they perhaps wanted to make a statement?
I've had a lot of concern around the transition of his scheme.
Is it that Fuente's system doesn't lend itself to a feature back, or we haven't had a feature back to incorporate into his system, so he's done other things to make up for that lack?
I don't think we need a 'feature' back; we need a back that can be a home run threat. We haven't had that back since Wilson left.
I don't think his system lends itself to a feature RB. The system is better designed for a Sam Rogers than it is for a Wilson or a Suggs. But that's just my opinion, I'm not a guru.
If your system doesn't work for Lee Suggs, your system sucks.
Disgonbegud.gif
Michaeljacksoneatingpopcorn.gif
Proof is in the pudding and we need to start seeing results soon. Recruiting has been... Poor. SI article last year was... not the best look. Losing to ODU and getting shithoused by Duke was not good. Losing the Commonwealth Cup and the bowl game in the manner we did... Also poor. Seeing our top recruits go elsewhere and then take shots publicly at us on the way out... Not ideal. Seeing our top player pull out of the season and blame the team for not taking the virus seriously... Not great.
We need some positive momentum and we need it soon. Right now all the momentum is in a direction we don't want it to be in.
Agree agree agree and agree!
It can be turned around, but it needs to happen soon before we enter the pit of despair.
If I'm being real honest here my feelings on the JF regime can be summed up in one sentence: A lot of what has went wrong isn't because he's a shitty football coach, but because a lot of the staff he brought with him from Memphis just wasn't ready for Big Dawg football.
Comparing this to the Mike Young basketball hire, I was openly critical of the pick. But then he assembled a staff that wasn't just a bunch of Mike Young boys. Yeah he brought one dude from his old staff, but we also kept a coach from Buzz's regime, brought in some highly regarded assistants (who can flat out recruit) that are "outside the Mike Young family tree" and instantly we have a hoops staff that's ready for Big Dawg Hoops. I'll admit I was wrong, as I now feel like the future of basketball is in good hands.
College football is a wierd occupation. If you do well at a smaller school you can get hired for a big conference job, and you get to take most of your work bros with you. For better or for worse.
Except Fuente kept Foster as a holdover, who should be ready for Big Dawg football. And yet, everybody's biggest complaints - getting our asses whupped by ODU and Duke, we gave up 45 and 49 points respectively. Yes, we should have scored more points, especially against Duke, and guess what, Fuente put HH in and we began scoring more points. Like I said, if HH had started the season, I'd be willing to bet we had at least a different BC outcome, but possibly also a different Duke outcome. If he hadn't been injured for ND, I think we would have won that. And if our Foster-led defense had been able to stop Perkins, we could have won that game. Then it would have been us facing Clemson for the conference title and it's a whole new conversation. We really weren't very far away from a conference title this year - 10 points against UVA, or wins against BC and Duke. I expect to win those games this year.
It has not been uncommon recently to see close games with bad defensive performances met with the idea that the offense should have scored in the 40s instead of the 30s. Which is weird when considered in the large, because usually only about 8 teams average over 40 points a game in a given season.
Yeah, it kind of baffles me too. But some teams we really SHOULD be scoring more points on, like FCS competition, especially if they're bad FCS competition, but I don't think we lost to bad FCS competition. But again, I don't think HH played in any of the games against FCS teams either.
He played against Rhode Island who played their keepaway gameplan fairly effectively. When you look at that game closely you'll see that the only times we didn't score were one three and out in the second half, the end of the first half, and the end of the game. The main thing keeping the offense from scoring in that game was the defense not getting them the ball back.
I did some quick math, and in games that Hooker played the majority of the snaps (so no UNC or Duke) we scored 35 ppg, which would make us a top 20 scoring offense.
Rhode Island, like ODU had a couple big tall wide receivers... it's tricky.
One of them even got drafted!
Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't have been better for both VT and Justin Fuente if he went to Baylor. I mean no disrespect to him. I just have little to no optimism left and I definitely blame VT for its fair share (falling behind in facilities, staff, etc.). Just shake hands and move on amicably.
The way our recruiting has fallen off the face of the earth...I mean, it's going to hurt his career prospects if our football program gets worse. After another year or two he's simply going to have a lower talent level than what he has now. Like why didn't he get out before that happens and we lose more games?
Hard disagree. Here's a list of the 2019 coaching salaries, find a better staff that we could realistically get for $7.7M or less. Mike Leach, Les Miles, Joe Moorhead, Ken Niumatalolo, and Lane Kiffin, are the only coaches on that list who (1) have an impressive record, (2) we could both afford, and (3) would entertain the possibility of coming here after the 2019 season, but each of them has baggage and/or a stigma attached to them. Maybe you could convince Will Healy to come for $1.5M, then pay each coordinator $1.5M, and have $2M to divide across the remaining 7 assistants? But that is a super risky strategy. The only other option I see is Brian Harson, but I'm not sure he's leaving his Alma Mater.
TL;DR - there's no obvious upgrade over Fuente.
It's not about upgrading anymore. We need any coach that is not perceived to have one and a half feet out the door. Every recruit we are fighting for hears a variation of "Justin tried to bounce once and he could be gone before you even get to campus" from Mack Brown, James Franklin, and everyone else we compete with for talent.
That's what we're up against. The whole world knows that if a decent P5 job in Texas or Oklahoma opens up there's a great chance that Justin Hamilton will be coaching our bowl game. If we have bowls.
If Fuente gets a decent job in Texas or Oklahoma, then that means he has elevated VT to a good place. He's not going to any of the schools any time soon - Let's go through every school in that region:
If Fuente loses to BC, GT, and UVA one season in the near future and can't stand the heat from that brutal VT/Roanoke media, I could absolutely see him jumping to SMU- who has unlimited church money- or Houston- where there is enough talent in that county to compete in the G5. I could see that easily. And I'm sure Bill Roth will tell you that SMU's facilities are better.
Why do you say that Baylor turned Fuente down? Why could it not be that Fuente really wasn't interested and turned them down? Other than that, I think this makes sense.
Why is it that you think he's got one and a half feet out the door? Apparently there have been a number of programs that have wanted to talk to that he hasn't even listened to. To me that says he's maybe got a toe or two out the door, not the other way around.
You know what I would have liked to see from Fuente? As soon as the refs told him they didn't have jurisdiction because it was more than an hour to kickoff, he should have went and grabbed the nearest deputy and had Bowden marched off in cuffs.
Man I forgot about that. What a trash excuse, where else can you commit assault with no repercussions.
What a horrible lesson for Bowden.
A) The ncaa rules say nothing about an hour limit, only the day of the game.
B) He could have decked the refs as long as it was an hour before the game, what are they gonna do? /s
Decking refs aside (and I saw the /s), his point is that if the NCAA didn't have jurisdiction, he should have had assault charges brought against him. I think we covered this then, that if Fuente had done that, the narrative would have been that was the lame/cheap way out - basically it would have been spun badly. Never mind that I would have loved to have seen that as well.
Also, I'd like to see Fuente kick some ass in the compliance department and end the awful string of waiver BS.
The Justin Fuente era is about expectations. If your expectations are to compare him to Beamer's final 4 years, where he had throat cancer, underwent a staff overhaul, and was formulating a retirement plan, then you are happy. If your expectations are higher than that, then you are not generally happy. I don't view the program benchmark as Beamer's final 4 years, thus my expectations are higher. The fact remains that Beamer's final teams produced more NFL players than Fuente has thus far, despite the perceived bottoming out. Give me Tim Settle talent over JUCO transfers every day when the results are about the same- Losing mid tier bowl games, head scratching coastal games, Paul Johnson mocking you by throwing one pass all game en route to 600 yards, Duke stomping you at home, ODU's walk on QB reminding you of Montana to Rice. Give me retiring Beamer who can't talk when he is signing NFL draft picks vs. the last class in the ACC. My expectations are higher than the Leoffler Searles years.
I'm going to ask the same question I asked above. Is there anything you like about Fuente? Genuinely curious.
Yes- I've met him- nice, down to earth guy. I feel his personality is perfect for VT, if he would have the confidence to embrace it, like Beamer did. Frank wore a rolex, but he looked you in the eye and said "aww shucks, we are in this together"- Fu has that same personality to endear the fans, he just hasn't used it yet. I also think he is an above average offensive mind- when he has a good QB, the offense is very good. I am also fine with his game management- he does a fine job there, IMO.
In this paragraph, it sounds like you think he's perfect for Virginia Tech.
In sharp contrast to what you say most of the time.
He said he could be perfect, if he engaged fans and recruits with his personality, instead of giving off the impression of hiding or staying under the radar.
I really agree with DC on this one. Fuente has a lot going for him, but he has to step up to the mic and let everyone know.
I wouldn't argue with any of that.
This just seems more positive than I recall seeing.
I'm good with it.
Most of the issues you bring up though (GT running 600 yards on us, Duke stomping us, ODU beating us) all have a LOT to do with giving up a lot of yards on defense. Again, Foster owns a lot of that. The thing Fuente really owns is the offense side of things, and he clearly didn't have the QB he wanted/needed in JJ or RW. We scored a whole hell of a lot more points with HH in the games this season. Hopefully with an improved/more experienced O-line, more experienced HH, some good RB options, our offense will take a step forward this year. Even with Farley out, our defense has some good experience. Hopefully we get a revamped and more effective D-line and solid defensive play and we should do really well this year.
Fuente is 0-fer the option in his career as a head coach. Never beat Navy at Memphis either. It messes with his head and he prepares and coaches scared against it. Yeah, Bud was trying to stop it that year with g5 talent up front, but for the most part, bud defended it well.
hmmm...that running scheme is in his head. maybe, subconsciously, this is why he now has ~20 RB's on scholarship! /s
Do you give Foster any of the blame there since, you know...it was his defense that gave up all those yards and points. We scored enough points against ODU to bury them. The defense didn't keep their end of the bargain. It was the defense that allowed PJ to throw all over them. Again, defense got blasted by Duke. Sure in that one the O didn't put up points so perhpas thats a push. But is Foster to blame at all for that? B/c for the most part Fuente was brought in for the O and his O has put up points. The defense hasn't held like they normally have.
I agree but I do think defensive recruiting took a slight step back with Fuente. Which was bound to happen if there was to be an emphasis on Offense. Noy a criticism by me but a potential reason Bud struggled a bit reloading.
Well, he did start a thread called "Bud Foster my ass lol clown show" after we lost.
Head Coach gets blame for the team overall, full stop. You can blame Foster for the defense in 2018, but you cannot absolve Fuente of blame completely. Fuente as the HC has final say on scholarship allocation amongst the 85, which impacts recruiting on BOTH sides of the ball, he has final say on the tone and discipline of the locker room, and he has to be given his part in that process, even if he keeps his hands off the schematics of the defense.
Also, lets be clear, keeping it close in the first half against ODU was a joint effort of futility (14-14). Getting to halftime is one of the key recipes for an major upset. There was an ESPN special or an article or something about it somewhat recently. We were pathetic in the first half, 14 points against ODU and one of those TD's was an 80 yard TD by Peoples. Both sides came out slouching.
It's harder to quantify, but the way we lost games in 2018 was representative of something that didn't happen under Beamer. The kind of quit we showed in the second half of the GT game, the last 3 quarters(?) of the Pitt game, the 2nd half of the Miami game was something VT fans are not accustomed to seeing, even in our down years. It's hard not to look at which variables were present in 2018 that weren't present before. That said, I don't think Fuente is totally to blame for that. However, I do understand where that sentiment comes from.
The defense was better than the offense in every Fuente season except 2018. I shudder to think what happens in 2017 without the top 10 Foster defense we fielded. We might not make a bowl game.
SP+ (off/def) by Fuente Season:
2016: 39th/21st
2017: 71st/9th
2018: 41st/77th (here's your one year)
2019: 56th/39th
Also, our points scored against P5 competition from 2017 into the first five games of 2019 was horrendous. Hopefully Hooker will continue to be the right kind of QB we need to have a much more competent offense like we saw at times last season.
I think some of the issues we had were player related. You reference 2018 and that was the year that some of the players wanted to throw the Marshal game so they didn't HAVE to go to a bowl game. WTF is that? My understanding is those players aren't on the team and weren't on the team in 2019 (an instance where attrition is not bad).
As far as points scored against P5 competition from 2017 to the first (shouldn't it be 4 games since game 5 was Miami and we scored (a season high for them) 45 points against them) games of 2019. I'm not disagreeing with you, but look at the QBs and RBs - JJ was the QB in 2017. With 2 more years of development, he just led Maryland to a 3-9 campaign. Maybe Fuente got more mileage out of JJ than otherwise could have been expected. RW was QB in 2018, and he did well against non P5 competition, but then fell apart later in the year. Part of that I think was a very young O-line which let RW get pressured more by the larger lines in the ACC. Which leaves us with 2019, and, like someone above pointed out above, of the games HH started, we averaged 35 points per game which would be good enough for a top 20 offense. This year, we have an older, more experienced (and possibly more talented with the addition of Hoffman) O-line, HH returns, Turner is back, with enough other WRs on the roster that we should get production, as well as a couple talented RBs (Herbert, and again, WTF NCAA rejecting Blackshear's waiver???), but King, Holston, and possibly Gary.
I am still pro Fuente but admit recruiting last 2 years has me worried. I know it's always next year, but if we are successful this year and JHam, Lechtenburg and TNT etc can get out and recruit post pandemic I think we will see recruiting bounce back in big way. If that doesn't happen the I hope first call is to Shane Beamer.
This is pretty much how I feel. I like the guys personality, he's quiet, humble, and doesn't seem to put up with BS. I know the Fuente gets a pass narrative is old but there are pretty big factors in all of his short comings. Doesn't excuse not landing at least a big target but there's constant fuel for other coaches to use recruiting against us. I mean how easy is it to put doubt in a players mind when a program has had two straight rough years and then a complete revamp of a coaching staff (IMO a very solid staff) but as an 17-18y/o there's still an element of uncertainty around the program right now.
At this point like him or not we're gonna have him for a while. The money lost this year + a relatively big buyout we're gonna have to live with this and hope some recruits for the past two cycles outplay their *'s. I think if we can string together a good season or 2 he has a high ceiling but he's been underwhelming thus far on some fronts.
My take, and it may not be a popular one, but I honestly think the best thing for both parties would be for him to take advantage of the upperclassmen talent he has the next two seasons and have a very solid season or two, then perhaps a job back in Texas/OK opens up and he takes it. I know that sounds counterintuitive to say if he starts winning more games, but for as nice of a guy and good of a coach as I think he is, I'm fairly well convinced he is not going to be able to move the needle with recruiting at VT, no matter how many resources you send his way. We need a charismatic, engaging personality to go along with the new and proposed facilities upgrade to sell, sell, sell this program and leverage every bit of what VT has to offer in order to overcome our financial disparity with the blue bloods. I just don't think Fuente is going to be that guy at this point.
128 comments of engaging, reasonable, and civil discussion. Thank you gentlemen and ladies! But...
Everybody got the frustration out in the COVID threads lol