Illinois Hokie's Recent Comments
Yes
a leg for Dick!
This could be due to a number of things: better running backs, better offensive line (although the coach certainly wasn't better in Newsome's time), and a better running backs coach.
For a while I agreed with you. But I think Shane has finally acquitted himself nicely as the running backs coach. Trey Edmunds has shown improvement when healthy and JCC's running with an entirely different style. I think Shane came in at a bad time, when the last of our string of NFL-caliber talent was about to leave. Now that we have some talent back at the position and a gelling O line I expect to see a return of the running game at VT.
I keep waiting for him to fly away
|
11 years 5 months
# | "Athletics department ready to begin construction on new indoor practice facility" They oversigned contractors. They're gonna pull some bids at the last minute.
Sic 'em, Torrian.
PS I love that his decommit tweet basically says, "I'm decommitting because reasons."
And we aren't even accounting for package plays in the current landscape, where a part of the designed play includes telling the QB, "If it's there, run for it."
Absolutely no doubt that the pocket passers deflate the rushing yardage numbers, but inflate the number of rushing attempts by taking sacks. It's a double whammy. That's why I asked OP if he had included sacks in his rushing attempts.
I don't agree with it, just posting what Beamer once said about it.
As uncomfortable as it may be, we have to keep our staff and our Fullwood separate.
"When you pass, three things can happen and two of them are bad."
I see your logic here, and I agree that sacks and undesigned scrambles can both be accepted as offsetting to a degree. The problem is that a sack is actually a called pass play that gets recorded as a rush. I have never liked that. I think statistically sacks should be their own entity, neither pass attempt nor rush, but c'est la vie.
After we played for the BCS championship in 99, a reporter asked Frank if he was going to use the momentum of the program to open up recruiting. His response was, "If anything, we're going to lock it down," and proceeded to talk about how the rise of the program would allow VT to cherry pick under best recruits in our existing footprint, which Frank thought was sufficient to field championship level talent.
I cringe every time I think about that quote.
I think the biggest cause for change in our recruiting strategy had been Shane's arrival. After seeing how the SEC does it, I think when Shane came into three program he saw how we were doing it vs his old employers and he had a heart to heart with his dad. Mind you, this is #conjecture not #sources, but our recruiting started to get aggressive around that time. I don't think it's a coincidence.
I also think the old staff got complacent and it bit us in the ass. But I think with each tweak to the staff we've gotten better at it. Now I think Frank has finally woken up, as evidenced by the fact that his first words about what he's looking for in a WR coach were, "You've gotta recruit."
I think Frank finally gets it. But what kills me is, what I'd he'd gotten it in '99?
Primary recruiter is Foster, mentions being impressed that Frank made the offer, only mentions talking to Moorehead after visiting campus. We might be okay here.
It's not really surprising to me that we're seeing the trend toward doing slightly better with the pass than the run, as your sample coincides with our run game drying up. I'm pretty sure that trend would not hold if we extended back into Tyrod's career and the glut of NFL talent we had at tailback. But, as they say, live in the now.
One question, tho. Did you factor sacks out of your carries per game? Sacks really mess with rushing stats, as evidenced by them masking an improvement by our running backs this year of almost a full yard per carry vs last season.
All in good fun.
Actually I think it's turned into more of an instance of people, myself included, taking issue with your tone. There's tons of disagreement on this site regarding all aspects of the program, and there are plenty of people who side with you on this topic. TBH I'm closer to siding with you, though that perception of mine is changing as we have gone on the aggressive in recruiting the last two cycles and it had paid dividends.
The problem isn't that you think CFB and Bud lack in recruiting effort, it's that you're meeting every disagreement that comes your way with a chip on your shoulder and a martyr complex. Now if you want to have a civilized discussion about what is and is not acceptable effort from senior coaches in recruiting, I'm down. If you want to cling to "read it on a pay site, therefore gospel," #sources, and claiming crucifixion when engaged in debate, you won't be a fan favorite here.
Never start something you can't
I'm on mobile and this article ends here for me:
The Numbers:
Run>Pass: 19-12 (.613)
Run
Is anyone else seeing that?
Hmmm...
At first we got Moorehead, but then we got Furrey.
Seems logical to me.
|
11 years 5 months
# | Bitter blog - 2014 in review: Tight ends rapidly became a focal point of the offense Great article, Andy. I look for that trend to continue, as a once you get past I. Ford and Phillips on the WR depth chart for 2015 you're met with a whole lot of uncertainty. Not to say there isn't talent in the receivers who will be redshirt freshmen this season, it's just unproven, untested talent. While they're getting their game legs underneath them it's a great position to be in to be able to have a 3 TE set that could give the QB five receivers to throw to.
Insiders are typically insiders because they can't hack it as journalists, and the only way they stay insiders is to make with some juicy gossip. Whether true or not, as long as it drives web clicks and trends on Twitter, the insider keeps his status. So no, an inside source isn't immune to the need to spin. Is argue insiders are more apt to spin a story to make it more sensational.
Regardless, the fact remains that the argument that Frank and Bud don't recruit is old hat. Everyone's heard it enough times to form their opinion on whether or not we see enough effort out of the big whistle and our DC on the trail. An anonymous source who had lunch with Josh Sweat's auntie one Tuesday probably isn't going to tip the scales on a lot of opinions.
Take whatever you want, but now we're into the realm of competing sources.
If he does flip to us, I wonder if he'll be criticized as thoroughly as Hoshun has been on here for not keeping his word, looking around after giving a verbal, etc.
Two Beamers...