Illinois Hokie's Recent Comments
Not really sure where you're going with that. We have three QBs behind Brewer. One is a senior who has some upside in a zone-read-based offense. We have a r-FR who will probably be a career wildcat QB, and then a true frosh with all the upside in the world. So yes, we have depth, we lack experience, and we have potential.
Receivers will drop balls. It happens. A scheme should overcome occasional individual player breakdowns. And Lefty's did, until Brewer went out.
Depth and experience are two different things.
At key spots like QB, we have to be 3 or 4 deep, or else we're going to turtle every time we have an injury like that.
First, only Ohio State is three deep at QB. That's not going to happen, here or anywhere. All we need is a viable backup QB. Pretty much any program in the P5 will see some dropoff between QB1 and QB2. But with the really good programs, the dropoff is negligible. OSU is the first program I can remember that could lose their first two QBs and have one good enough to win a natty. That's just ridiculous.
Second, depth is not a minor issue, but a fixable issue, and from what I can see, our only remaining issue. We have the coaching staff, improving facilities, and a hungry AD. Get us two deep across the board (five serviceable backup O linemen, 5-6 WR, four TEs, four RBs...) and we can contend. We could have that by 2018 if we want.
Third, and this just is what it is, Beamer will always sacrifice a non-conference game in favor of being in good shape for the conference slate. It is what it is. I don't think we would have packed it in if Brewer had gone down against Georgia Tech instead, for example. We can debate the merits of that, but Beamer looks at non-conference games as tune-up for the conference games. He would never risk catastrophic injury to win one.
Disagree with this so vehemently, I'll just shake your hand and walk away.
I don't get your logic here. Yes, the way we turtled proves we are too thin at key skill positions, but that's basically what I said is all that's missing. The reason we immediately flipped strategies to "live to fight another day" is specifically because QB depth after Brewer is uncharted territory, and while the coaching staff thinks we can still have a successful ACC run with Brewer out, they thought it was impossible with Brewer AND Motley out.
That doesn't make us further away than I claimed. If anything, it proves my point. Depth is the issue, and the only issue, separating us from the upper echelon of P5 football. Get us two-deep at every position without monumental dropoff and we're there. That's a problem we can have fixed within three years, tops, if we commit as a program to doing it. We could be in the playoffs well before Lawson graduates without us having to bank on injury luck as a primary factor.
I think Beamer made a number of mistakes along the way. He thought Virginia would yield enough talent to be nationally competitive, he believed he could own Virginia recruiting, he allowed poor position coaches to stay on roster far, far too long, and he adhered to a seniority-based roster well past the point it had been proven an obsolete model. But the one thing I don't believe he has ever done, despite so much insistence to the contrary, is meddle in the affairs of his position coaches and coordinators. So I definitely don't believe that Frank can't win a national championship.
I think Frank now sees what he did wrong and has corrected. Case in point would be the hiring away of AMo. Very similar situation to when Kevin Rodgers got hired away by the Vikings when Childress got the head gig. Frank's response to that was to value loyalty over ability for about the next six years, because he bristled at the fact that someone would use VT as a stepping stone. But when the young, talented AMo got hired away by a sexier program, Frank's response was to just go out and get the best damn replacement he could find. He gets it now.
So basically, I think Frank is exactly the kind of coach that will go as far as his staff takes him. He lets his coaches coach and has minimal interference beyond saying what he wants VT football to be about in broad, sweeping terms. He lets his coaches figure out how to adhere to that vision on their own. So then the question becomes, do we have the right staff, and can we make up for lost time before Frank retires. The answer to the first question is yes, IMO. The answer to the second is maybe.
I have committed to not judging Motley based on his second half performance, especially after hearing Lefty's comments about being worried about him turning an ankle. Motley was both wide-eyed and handcuffed, an unwinnable combination.
The question now becomes, will Lefty allow Motley to play his game as the starter? Was the fear of a twisted ankle merely a survival instinct to get us out of a non-conference game with hopes that our roster will suffice to win the ACC? Because the one thing I am certain of is, if we attempt to turn Brenden Motley into Michael Brewer, this offense will fail. Brenden can't make all the throws, but he has the mobility to make up for it with his legs. He wasn't allowed to do that against OSU, but he must be allowed to against whichever other opponents he faces as the starter.
There would be nothing wrong with Hansen playing. He's a solid RT who is a bit gimpy coming out of fall camp, and who struggles against elite pass rushers. I'm certainly hoping he isn't done for the year by any stretch.
It will become much harder to pound the rock, even accounting for the improvements along the OL, if opponents are putting nine in the box. The new starter has to prove himself a viable passer, if only off play-action, for the run game to improve this year.
I hope this game was a wake-up call to our administration in just how far we are from being where we are telling our fans on where we want to be.
This here, I can't actually agree with you on.
We climbed out of a 14-point hole, scored 17 unanswered going into the half and were moving the ball on the play when our QB was lost for at least most of the season. We were right in the thick of dogfight with the defending national champions on a night where our defense was far from perfect. If anything, to me, the game up until the injury proved we are closer than anyone might realize. Based on what I saw against OSU, I could honestly have seen a Brewer-led VT making the playoffs this year, regardless of the outcome. We have the schemes, the coaching, and the first-string talent to be a playoff program. What we lack is the second and third strings.
It would be one thing if we were worlds away, if I'm correctly interpreting your response as claiming. But what's worse is, we are close. Infuriatingly close. So if we miss this opportunity, it'll make the bad decisions made in the previous decade all the more egregious.
Having our QB situation just feels off a little. Like why are we in this situation?
It doesn't matter that the starting QB went down. That does not give Lefty a pass. His scheme is installed on offense, as the first 2.5 quarters against OSU demonstrated. It will not be run as efficiently with someone else as the starter, but Motley has been on the team since year one of Lefty, and Durkin has a year under his belt in the system as well. If neither of them have the skill set to run the offense (mainly passing) then you start Lawson and let him learn the offense live.
The one thing I won't do is judge Lefty based on the offensive dropoff that is bound to happen just because we lost our starter. The offense probably won't look as crisp with Motley/Durkin/Lawson as it did with Brewer, and that will not be a knock on Lefty. But if the offense turns into a repeat of the last two years, I won't be kind to Scot. He has players at all positions to understand the scheme now. Out of the three QBs, there has to be one that can at least function within it.
So I guess, long story short is, the only thing that Lefty doesn't shoulder the blame for would be QB mistakes, and we should see mistakes diminish as the season progresses and the new starter gets more first team practice reps and live snaps.
The issue I take with this mindset is that there is nothing preventing us from taking that next step to become a national championship contender. It's a self-imposed sanction that our program is where it is. I've talked this point to death, but after the '99 run, a reporter asked Beamer if he was going to open up recruiting on a national level, and Beamer's response was, if anything, he planned on locking recruiting down. Beamer went all-in on the notion that we could field nationally competitive teams by owning Virginia recruiting. That gamble failed, as 1) Virginia does not produce enough elite talent to field a national championship caliber team, and 2) we failed to lock down the state anyway.
You are correct that we are not a national title contender, because when we were on the cusp of becoming one, we chose not to. Now, for the first time in my lifetime, we have an AD with the vision to turn us into one. The investments made to the program recently should have been made circa 2002.
We can be a national championship contender if we choose to become one, but that will take calculated risks. And unfortunately, Whit's predecessor was one of the most risk-averse ADs among P5 schools. Now the question is, have we missed our window? I don't believe that we have.
Here's hoping we go pissed-off Obi-Wan on our remaining opponents.
Few penalties until late
And one penalty total on the offensive line. That is huge.
The non-call on 65 on the Elliot TD run blew my mind. My understanding has always been if the defender tries to turn away from the block to pursue a ball carrier, you have to disengage. It's pretty obvious that Dadi could have made a touchdown-saving tackle if 65 had disengaged his block, and the blocker was not positioned between the defender and the ball carrier. 65 was clearly pulling Dadi back toward him to prevent the tackle. Ergo, holding.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's why we lost, and we still overcame this TD going into the half, but man, I don't know how much more blatant you can be. I'm sure this will be in the package of plays Beamer sends to the ACC officials this week.
Then what would you say the top objective should be from the standpoint of the QBs? Motley has been in this system four years. I don't think he's going to have a come to Jesus moment now that makes him a prototypical NFL style QB. He's a known commodity at this point.
He's also injury-prone. Some of the hits Brewer peeled himself up after would have sent Motley to the sideline. So while all the talk might be on who the starter is right now, I assure you that Motley's backup WILL see the field in significant situations.
So I stand by it. Developing Lawson is our top objective from a QB standpoint. Because we are going to need him at some point, and that's likely to be this year.
For two quarters, I saw the offense I've been waiting to see. Not so much the early stalls in first quarter, but the fact that we witnessed on the fly adjustments that led to us climbing out of a 14 point hole to claim a halftime lead. All without any of the wing and a prayer gambles it took to win last year in the Shoe. The offense looked sharp and confident with Brewer. Now I need to see if it can look that way with anyone else under center.
The more I look at it, I honestly believe the total objective became getting out of the game injury-free, and play calling and substitutions on both sides support that. Also explains the loss of all morale on the team if they were picking up on the coaches essentially mailing it in.
Eager to see the reviews on this one.
Positives:
- OL was opening holes in run blocking.
- OL was also holding a pocket in pass pro.
- Running backs were getting YAC.
- DL was getting steady penetration, just couldn't corral Cardale.
- Despite some incomprehensible grumbles I've heard, I thought play calling was excellent all night long.
- Pass play design is brilliant. Designed to get one receiver open and only make QB need one read.
- ZERO false starts. ONE holding penalty. Searels is doing the Lord's work.
- Ryan Motherfucking Malleck.
I also want to see French's analysis, but it seems like we abandoned the bear front almost immediately after Brewer went down. I don't know what it was, but I swear it looked like we had six down linemen at some points.
What's your rationale? You state three hypotheticals and then just answer no. Why can't JCC cary the load? Why can't Trey regain his form? Why can't McMillian run between the tackles and be an every down back?
You're jumping awfully quickly to betting the farm on a guy coming back from his second ACL surgery.
I want the one with the most upside. And that's Lawson, hand's down.
Thanks for the correction. I could have sworn he was a senior.