Illinois Hokie's Recent Comments
Yet those are specifically the types of defenses VT has traditionally gone for 350 yards and 27 points against. Even when adjusting for opposing defenses, VT's offense was outperforming. We were doing what an offense was supposed to do against inferior defenses, which is something we have struggled to do historically.
Between the two, I'd imagine Loeffler has no issues with Stinespring. Stiney has been turning out great TEs for years, and from what I can tell has not so much as looked crossly at Scot. Shane, on the other hand, has done Loeffler no favors. Not that I think Shane is out to harm Scot's career or anything, but the product Shane is putting on the field in his running backs is not helping what Scot wants to do in his scheme. Scot can't rely on the tailbacks, and the overall offensive performance is hurting because of it.
Politely disagree. We will see wins like that with the current coaching staff. They will elate us and give us false hope, which will then come crashing down when we subsequently lose to a team that is outmanned.
Our problem is not that we aren't a good team, it is that the coaching staff, and by that I mean Frank, has fostered a culture of inconsistency. We can beat anyone. And we can lose to anyone. That's what is unacceptable. Not that we suck, because we don't. It's that we have no idea what to expect going into any given game.
He has had his time to install his offense and get his guys in and we're not seeing the results.
See, I disagree. We were seeing results. That's what makes this all the more confounding. Not to say this is acceptable. You can't have four games where you're averaging 450 yards and 35 points and then put 100 yards and 10 points up. That's just too large a turd in the punch bowl. A bad game with those averages would be 350 yards and 21 points. This level of inconsistency is just unacceptable.
It's two different issues. A bad offense vs and inconsistent offense. Now granted, there's seven games left to play, but thus far we're dealing with an inconsistent offense, and the level of inconsistency is just abysmal. You can't go into any game knowing your offense could potentially be good for a hundred yards.
A bad offense would actually be easier to fix, IMO. And maybe we are a bad offense. Maybe we'll stink up the joint all through ACC play. But the Pitt results came from so far out of left field, I don't even know how to account for it.
I think people who are placing blame on any one coach or coordinator are fooling themselves. The issues with this program run far deeper.
It would be one thing if the offense had been horrid since the first game. Yet entering conference play, the offense had not only far outpaced last season's effort, it was a top-40 team in total and scoring offense. If you ask for more than that in Blacksburg, you're probably nitpicking. The offense could move. The offense could score. The offense was contributing.
The fact that what happened against Pitt could happen, yes it's a failure on Scot Loeffler's part. But it's also much more than that. Every aspect of the offense fell apart. The running backs couldn't run. The O line couldn't block. The QB couldn't find his receivers. The only bright spot was the fact that receivers were, in fact, open all day. Zohn Burden gets a pass in my book. Ford and Phillips were getting separation. It just didn't matter.
Do I think Loeffler is to blame about what happened against Pitt? Yes, among others. But firing him solves nothing, unless we bring in an OC who is allowed to structure every facet of the offense, including the position coaches, to his liking.
Sorry, Pierson, I have to disagree with you a little bit. Our loss against Pitt was nothing at all like our loss against ECU.
A week removed from an embarrassing performance against a mobile quarterback, Bud Foster's defense failed to execute once again. Everyone watching knew Voytik had entered to make plays with his feet. It was as though the defense had learned nothing between games.
This comment, I simply cannot agree with it. Were there breakdowns in Bud Foster's defense against Pitt? Yes, absolutely. And that is the exact nature of Bud Foster's scheme. Now more than ever, the Lunch Pail is a "break but don't bend" defense, where an opposing offense is either going to gain 2 yards (which is the common result) or 50 (which happens a handful of times per game). The level of individual responsibility placed on players in key positions in Foster's scheme is monumental, and they play without a safety net, meaning one mistake can lead to a touchdown regardless of where the line of scrimmage is on that play. It's the nature of the defense. We simply must accept this after so many years of "big plays" being the only knock on the defense we run. It is who we are. These breakdowns are not an ailment to be repaired, they are a necessity due to the nature of the defense we run.
You can look at the big plays on which Pitt amassed the majority of their yardage and say, "If only we could have stopped them," but if you do, you're fooling yourself. You're asking college players to play perfect games. That's what it would take to avoid the occasional big play the defense gives up. The key defensive positions would have to make no mistakes at all over the course of the entire game. It's an impossible standard. We should all stop perpetuating the myth that it's possible.
17 points and 276 total yards. That's all that matters. The defense did its job. Forget how Pitt got their yards and points. The defense handed the offense a winnable game, and the offense could do nothing with it. For the first time this season, the offense is solely responsible for a loss. The offense let the entire team down.
As Virginia Tech fans, we're conditioned to judge defensive breakdowns more harshly than offensive breakdowns, simply because as a program we have leaned too heavily, and for far too long, on the defense to win games. But Pitt is completely on the offense. We should always expect our offense to be able to put more than 17 points on the board. That level of output is simply unacceptable. It was the offense's one bad outing so far this season, but it was so colossally, monumentally bad that it simply cannot be excused. Everyone's entitled to a bad game once in a while, but when that one game is the worst offensive showing in the tenure of a 29-year head coach, that's a sign of a significant and systemic problem.
I can only hope when Frank made comments about "personnel" and "the way we coach some things," he was referencing the tailback rotation, among other things.
|
10 years 9 months
# | Hokies' Offensive Line Struggles Run Blocking and Pass Protecting Against Pitt, Beaten Physically Blind side pressure has been Motley's achilles heel since he got the nod. I noticed it in the Purdue game. I don't think he has the pocket awareness needed at this level. He's mobile enough to evade pressure, but doesn't seem to have the awareness to notice it if it is coming from the left side.
I can only imagine the frustration of opening holes in the run game, only to have the running backs consistently not find them. Then being called on to pass block repeatedly on a day when it's clear you have no answers at left tackle for the opposing pass rush, not because you failed to run block, but rather because your backfield teammates couldn't find the holes you were opening.
I thought the same thing after ECU, but as Mason pointed out, the line was opening holes against ECU, the running backs just weren't finding their lanes. I'm wondering if the same thing happened against Pitt.
And $4 million would shock me. I think we get someone in the high twos or low threes, and I think Whit will do what he can to keep us under three mil if possible. Open the pocketbook but make sure we're getting excellent value.
I think you might be underestimating the potential impact of a good DC hire for UNC. Gene Chizzik might wind up being a Brent Venables caliber hire for the Tarheels. All they were missing was a defense.
I swear to God, if TKP starts launching careers, it will hit a whole new level of sheer fucking badassery.
I'm sure Joel could shed some light on this, but I'm guessing it has to do with computer simulations among the various teams and win probabilities based on their bodies of work thus far.
Is Arizona a school with a disproportionately high number of benefactors? I'm certain a similar partnership could be put together with business ventures in either the NoVa area or the 757. All we need is a high dollar donor eager for change. There simply has to be some out there .
So structurally, it's similar to Foster's annuity that just got paid out recently, in that the trigger is simple longevity. The difference is a high dollar donor and shares in a limited master partnership.
I know you're saying it doesn't make any sense for RichRod to leave Arizona because of this deal, but is there anything preventing a similar package to be put together by VT as an offer?
EDIT: Just thought about this. RR's stake in the partnership is currently valued at 6 million and change. If you add that to his base salary, staggered over eight years, you've matched the current value of his incentive. If that wasn't sufficient to tempt him away, you could float a payout at the end of eight years that matches the difference between the appraised value of his stake in the partnership now and the value at the payout date, with some safeguards for the university should the partnership value skyrocket.
I'm just saying, there's more than one way to make competitive offers against RR's current contract.
|
10 years 9 months
# | Tech's Embarrassing 17-13 Loss to Pitt Prompts Frank Beamer to Promise Change Man. Talk about derailing an agreeable sentiment at the absolute last moment.
"It's not cool to make fun of where people are from, you NoVa douche."
I mean, hypocrisy much?
Well, honestly he was watching a very good defensive effort. The DBs played well. Facyson especially was on point. If Ladler's goal is developing as a player and making the League, this choice makes sense.
Absolutely. Virginia Tech football has been a demonstration of the law of diminishing returns lately.
Call it a hunch and nothing more. I believe if the man Bud is loyal to more than anyone else is gone and anyone besides Bud is offered the job, especially if it is an outsider, then I think Bud goes elsewhere, either as a DC or a head coach. I admittedly might be misreading the situation, and my opinion is based on nothing more than my read of the personalities involved.
Good lord. I knew GT was losing more than most people reckoned, but the fact that we have more than twice the chance they do of winning the division is incredible.
Also allow me to be the first to say, loluva.
The issue of "resting" a defense is overstated. Regardless of the amount of time the defense spends on the sideline between series, it is better for the defense to return to the field either A) having a 7 point greater lead than they were playing with when they last came off the field, or B) being 7 points closer to taking the lead. Defense is called differently based on the score, just like offense is. Let Bud play with a lead and shit gets wrecked.
Again, I don't think we keep Bud Foster if we bring in a guy like Chip Kelly, but if we did, putting a ton of points on the board would be the best thing a head coach and offensive coordinator could do for him.
I agree, but I'm also just about past good game/bad game discussion. Yesterday, special teams looked promising. Any excitement I have over that is tempered by the fact that most likely at some point we will witness a game that includes monumental breakdowns in special teams. We won't know when it's coming until it smacks us in the face.
|
10 years 9 months
# | Tech's Embarrassing 17-13 Loss to Pitt Prompts Frank Beamer to Promise Change The knock on Motley is that he can't always carry a team on his shoulders. That's not much of a knock.
Sorry if you felt I was piling on or misrepresenting your position. Neither was my intention. Having gone back and reread that section, I now can see it as you state above, as a reaction to that one long run from Voytik. That was not the way I originally interpreted it.
I did notice you followed up with an acknowledgement of a solid defensive game. I realize now I perhaps quoted the wrong excerpt of your article, because what I was actually replying to was this:
That quote does strike me as being in the vein of thinking the big plays given up are the fault of the players. And admittedly, they are, but only insomuch as any football player is going to make occasional mistakes. Foster's defensive scheme puts key position players in a spot where mistakes are magnified exponentially. When the free hitter makes a mistake, the result is usually a big gain and/or a score. But I can't blame the free hitter for that unless mistakes are made too frequently. Three or four times a game, that's human.
Also, I should offer an apology here. After rereading my own post, I realize it comes across as argumentative and critical, which is bad on me. I was responding to a general theme I see amongst our fanbase to point fingers at defensive lapses more harshly than offensive failures. I was attempting to disagree with a theme I thought I sensed in what you wrote, and in the process I came across as disagreeable. I failed to follow my own rule of "praise the whole, critique the specific." For that, I apologize.