Recent Comments
If VT is going to be like any fanbase; it can't be a team that has won a world series (Marlins or Braves). I can see the Rays being a good comparison.
But why not the Cubs? Loyal Fanbase. Sell out in good times and bad (mostly). Travel well. Small stadium that gets a lot of national respect. Constantly get their hopes crushed in October, and are still waiting for a marquee post season win.
A casual fan might read that as a criticism; but a real fan will know its true, and the truth hurts sometimes.
Oh. He has it.
Might not be all praise and "They'll get after you". But the fans love him and that is enough. If Dabo can be a head coach, then Foster can be a head coach.
|
12 years 6 months
# | "...especially with a weak non-conference schedule that includes Navy, Virginia Tech and Cincinnati..." "I see 10 failures to do so."....I couldn't disagree more with this comment. To just discount our team and call it failure when we win 10 games for 8 straight years....Do you have any idea how hard it is to remain this consistent? To have the 5th most wins in NCAA football from 2000 to 2011? Come on...ridiculous.
Can you explain a little what your brilliant idea of taking risks means? Should we encourage boosters to pay our players? Should we cheat? What risks do you mean? The risk of winning our conference and going to 5 BSC bowls in a short time period?
Answer me this...why should you have to sacrifice being consistently good for a shot at a great year? You are saying we should purposely have bad years and that will automatically give us a great year? The two don't correlate AT ALL.
If you are consistently good, you have a MUCH BETTER shot at being great. Taking "down years" does not increase your odds at being great. If you think differently, please explain how...
I DO see that as doing right and I am sad for you that you see it as "doing something wrong."
|
12 years 6 months
# | "...especially with a weak non-conference schedule that includes Navy, Virginia Tech and Cincinnati..." ie - Auburn.
That one play though put us without any chance of going for a touchdown and having to settle for 3 points. Also, Beamer isn't the one calling the plays. Abandoning the passing game could, and should, be pushed back to Mike O'Cain since he was the playcaller. Based upon delegations with Stinespring as the OC and O'Cain as the playcaller, it was my understanding that the two of them developed a strategy and gameplan pre-game and then O'Cain implemented it by calling the plays during the game. Play selection is not Beamer's fault.
🥁STICK IT IN🥁
|
12 years 6 months
# | "...especially with a weak non-conference schedule that includes Navy, Virginia Tech and Cincinnati..." I think Beamer thought that if you shoot for 10 wins eventually greatness just happens, but I think the evidence states that this isn't true at all.
Not sure. But at least Wilson is 'solider' than he was before.
Prepping for a backflip into the Hudson?
I'm chalking this misspelling up to medication
Marlins won two world series before regressing (due to ownership dismantalling the team) the year after.
🚀🛡️
|
12 years 6 months
# | "...especially with a weak non-conference schedule that includes Navy, Virginia Tech and Cincinnati..." I think the whole "ten win season" thing has been, and always will be a natural stepping stone towards a championship. You can't get there without it, so why criticize it? And yes, the offense should have been addressed sooner than it was, but if you're consistently 1 or 2 games away from the championship, is it worth it to change? Change is not always for the better- although I would agree it'd be hard to get much worse than some points in previous years.
But my argument is this: if you're consistently getting right to the doorstep, why risk changing and losing those opportunities. There's a lot of luck that goes in to getting to the championship game (look no further than Auburn this year). I'd rather have the consistency, and hope that the stars align one year, than "sacrifice" bad years for one good one.
That fake punt play was the worse. Called a time out to set it up. Our D was shutting them down, pin them deep, get the ball back, score, win in regulation. Instead, give it to them on the 50, score to tie, lose in OT.
And this is not the benefit of hindsight; it sucked just as hard in real time.
Actually it does matter...For the record...I don't think Mike London is trash. I will reserve the right to make jokes about anything and everything UVA, Mike London included.
I am sure he is a good guy, just not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Lighten up. This is a Virginia Tech board the last time I checked. There have been many worse things said about UVA and Time Cop.
Are you the Mike London joke police?
Luck happens in football, the game shouldn't have been close enough for any of that to matter. Us turtling in the RZ is what lost that game.
They only thing they are good for is a good laugh.
No big game Beamer was the one who completely abandoned the passing game that was shredding the UM secondary once we got in the RZ.
That DW run was one play, the issue was all of the other running plays and the relative lack of passing plays that were working.
Or the fake field goal that we played perfectly and it was deflected into an OL's arms and resulted in a first down?
But we had Marus Vick..that covers a lot of the character issues
Big Game Beamer didn't tell David Wilson to try to make something out of nothing which resulted in a >15 yard loss. One of many bad plays. Still question the one overruled interception and the PI, non-interception on Hosley though. IMO, Beamer only messed up the fake punt. Everything else in that game was played as best as you could have asked.
|
12 years 6 months
# | "...especially with a weak non-conference schedule that includes Navy, Virginia Tech and Cincinnati..." I never suggested it was easy to win football games. This is a strawman.
My point is that you have goals, and you either achieve those goals or you don't. Each success needs to be used as a step to reach your ultimate goal.
It was my understanding that our goal was the MNC. Over time I think that stopped being the case. I think the goal at some point became 10 win seasons, that was just never communicated to the fans.
I think Beamer thought that if you shoot for 10 wins eventually greatness just happens, but I think the evidence states that this isn't true at all.
I don't agree with FB that greatness is something that just happens to you, I think it's something you go get. I don't think that hoping for soemthing to happen is a strategy, this is where FB, you, and I differ.
My points are very clear, there is no need to add nonsense like "you think it's easy to win games."
It's clearly not easy to win games, FB spent half a decade ignoring the festering wound that was our offense because "10 wins" eventually having a great defense and a terrible offense wasn't enough to win games, because winning games is hard. Unfortunately we had to learn that the hard way by amputating the leg rather than treating he wound when it first started being a problem.
Atlanta Braves won a title.
🥁STICK IT IN🥁
|
12 years 6 months
# | "...especially with a weak non-conference schedule that includes Navy, Virginia Tech and Cincinnati..." Do any of you remember FoxTrax?
Working for a company that develops web applications, this is the bane of my existence.
"So...uh...does it work on IE7? Because we can only use IE7"
Sorry for being "that guy." The only reason I know this is he is from my hometown, so I've been following his career pretty closely. Not many athletes from that neck of the woods make it out to have successful pro careers.
This didn't feel as good though once we found at that Bama's D really wasn't that "vaunted" this year.