Recent Comments
Let's be real, Les Miles is just trying to get Grimes to share his secret of his ferocious facial hair.
It's true, we've benefitted from the rematch scenario and at the time I didn't mind it. Homerism aside, I just think that the current state of the ACC mindset is "let's think of something needlessly complex that will probably end up causing controversy" when the simple answer is "don't do stupid stuff like force VT and BC to play one another every year for no reason." Scratch the permanent crossover and the schedule opens up. It makes for more exciting play, diverse travel and matchup experiences for all the teams, and reduces the likelihood of rematches, which also typically don't sell tickets very well (unless you are Alabama vs. LSU). Some won't like it, but I'd venture that the majority of the ACC teams would.
Except our feelings
In fall camp and in limited cameos early in the season, Parker, who was an electric running quarterback in high school, struggled with the basics of alignment and pass catching fundamentals.
Looks like he has some other stuff to work on as well...
I think it would be stupid to not at least interview with LSU. I mean its not hurting anything.
Do you think Carlis Parker could provide some of the vertical threat that you speak of? He has the speed and height. Probably needs to bulk up more. Or do you think we have seen as much of him as we are going to see? I don't think you could just have him as a 'jet sweep' guy, right?
Didn't LT say he was only interested in TE and those that were interested in him as a QB shouldn't recruit him? I feel like I remember that.
maybe the white guy.
Fisher worked out as a DB/Safety exclusively at recruiting camps, and stated in more than one interview he was only interested in playing Safety in college and schools who saw him as an LB shouldn't recruit him.
He's also listed as a DB on Fork Union's roster, curious where you heard that he was playing LB this past fall.
http://www.forkunion.com/sites/default/files/2013%20PG%20Roster.pdf
Rover is put in man-to-man coverage against slot WR more frequently than the Whip or FS. We might run a Cover-1 or Cover-0 against 4-wide where the Whip or FS covers the other slot, but genereally the Whip gets a TE/FB/RB or zones to the flat, and the FS zones deep.
Just my $0.02, but we have no playmakers on offense. Plenty of solid players, but no home run threat. Edmunds has shown potential, but except for one run against Bama, he has not shown that he can be a Evans/RW/DW quality back. Our receivers are tremendously improved, but no one on the current roster can go up and bring down a 'jump ball.'
Let me pose a question: It's 3rd down, and VT desperately needs to convert. Who on our returning roster do trust to make a play time and time again? There's no Danny Coale who somehow finds a way to get open. There's no Boykin, who can catch a ball over the middle of the field, receive a huge hit, and still hold on to the ball. There's no Tyrod to scramble 31 yards and miraculously run to the first down marker. There's no RW to break 5 tackles. There's not DW who can get to the edge and then accelerate... So who's going to make a play for us?
Every great team has play makers. This year, Auburn could almost always rely on Tre Mason to get yards when they needed. On FSU, Benjamin always seemed to come down with the ball when he needed to. We haven't seen this from any returning skill player at VT.
The crux of this argument is that we expect a lot of things to happen. In reality, if 2 of the 4 things happen (WR improvement, TE improvement, OL improvement, Loeffler system implementation improvement), we're only going to be as good as we were this year on offense. Having 3/4 or 4/4 of those things happening, while we can reasonably expect them to happen, probably won't happen for one unforeseen reason or another. Losing recruits, injuries, grade problems, the list goes on. There are too many question marks about this offense to expect anything a whole lot better than the output we had this year.
Also, this. To return to 10 wins, a lot of things need to go our way. The sheer likelihood of everything going our way just isn't that likely.
Probably not any of these Roots though...
I really don't care about that "rematch" argument. In case you've forgotten (I know, I sometimes want to forget 2007 too), we were the beneficiary of a "rematch" at twice, in 2007 and 2008 where we lost to BC in the regular season only to beat them in the ACCCG. Also one reason I'm not too pissed about the LSU-Bama MNCG, since Bama was still probably the second best team in the nation, and then they came back to win the rematch, and left no doubt about who was the better team.
Because that game has been quite the cashcow for the conference... Miami and FSU can still play each other as an OOC game on years where they aren't scheduled as part of the conference schedule if it matters that much to them.
That has been the collective reasoning as of late. Especially with the 0'fer this week of both teams. If they can win 3-4 more games I think he somewhat safe for another season. If we were to only win 2 games or less I think the new AD puts his/her stamp on the program with a new hire.
I should also mention I'm not opposed to realigning the divisions, i.e. more North/South oriented. The ACC could put Miami and FSU in the same division and solve that one. Realignment would probably require minimum effort, really, and there are a number of ways it could be done. To me, though, you need a championship game between two division champions. I think the coaches and ADs would be behind keeping the importance of divisions, otherwise they lose the "Division Champion" title that they get even if they lose the ACCCG. If we have Clemson and FSU again, we only get one division champion and one conference champion, and maybe they aren't even the same team!
This is something that we keep bringing while at games. I feel like we could paint the front of the steps like they did in the south endzone in Lane and have different colored sections and makes those the different sections for different prices. Pretty sure they'd get a lot more than the couple thousand they are getting right now if people had a cheaper option to get in.
I know this is French's version of an AMA, and at the risk of being seen as "butting in", I'll give my 2 cents.
Each individual position had issues and question marks this year, and that will continue into next season. RB was a bit of a mess, although Edmunds looked good down the stretch before his injury. WR's had a good year, but a lack of talent causing a lack of separation or ability to out-muscle DB's for balls shows there can be lots of improvement. Grimes is doing well with the OL this year, and it could be a strength of the team next year. A new QB is a huge question mark, but hopefully it allows us to gameplan around an improved running game to take pressure off the new QB. Another year in Loeffler's program will help the entire offense.
That said, VT's offense was really really really bad this year and was predicated entirely off of the best playmaker on offense, LT3. Without LT3 in the mix and another year in Loeffler's scheme, the offense should come out with a nice identity.
The crux of this argument is that we expect a lot of things to happen. In reality, if 2 of the 4 things happen (WR improvement, TE improvement, OL improvement, Loeffler system implementation improvement), we're only going to be as good as we were this year on offense. Having 3/4 or 4/4 of those things happening, while we can reasonably expect them to happen, probably won't happen for one unforeseen reason or another. Losing recruits, injuries, grade problems, the list goes on. There are too many question marks about this offense to expect anything a whole lot better than the output we had this year.
QB is definitely the biggest question mark- and by far the most important factor in the performance of the offense. that's why expectations are so low.
Unless they realigned, that would blow up the annual FSU-Miami matchup. And you know the ACC covets that money.
Because the BCS is dead!
Eliminating the importance of divisions is idiotic. The simplest solution (and the best, IMHO) is just to kill the permanent crossover opponent. Play every team in your division, plus two from the other division on a rotating basis. That way, in 4 years of playing time, a player gets to face every ACC team at least once. The likelihood of rematches is also small under that scenario. This year is just a microcosm of what would happen, but overall I think intra-division rematches are awful. What if Clemson had pulled off the win in the ACCCG over FSU? Are they really better than FSU, or did they just happen to win the "right" time around?
I agree, but that means FSU/Miami don't play every year (I don't care, but ACC will). I would however care if we did not play Miami every year. IMO that's our premier rivalry game.
If we lose Grimes, I hope we go hard after Todd Washington.
Am I the only one that actually likes the idea of seeing some new teams every once in a while. Rarely ever playing Florida State or Clemson makes for an incredibly boring schedule. I would rather play and see the marquee matchups then get lucky hiding behind our easy side of the division. I do agree though that actually deciding the 2 top teams could possibly be a mess without divisions.