Recent Comments
Antone Exum had one twice as hard on Dimitri Knowles on an end around.
n/m
Okay so before I begin, let me warn you that I don't claim to know anything about line play (especially not to the extent that french does). I'm just going to tell you guys what I saw (or thought I saw, at least). First: Dyrell Roberts looked like he'd put on some good weight. Still looks like a #STRAIGHTBURNER but with a little more mass. That's a good thing. Our offense struggled with the run game for the most part except for a solid run up the middle by Martin Scales and a long (60 yd TD) by Michael Holmes after he bounced to the outside. Holmes doesn't have the speed of David Wilson, but looks like he's fast enough to make it to the end zone if someone can spring him free.
Speaking of springing someone free, Laurence Gibson absolutely manhandled a defender (2nd stringer, didn't see who it was), pushing him back about 30 yards. French expects big things from him and I agree that he's certainly capable of domination. And we're going to need some domination on the O-line in order for JC Coleman to be effective at all. The only time I saw him rush for more than a yard, it appeared to be on a missed assignment on the defense where there were no defenders to the left and he ran for about 15 yards. However, every time he was touched, he was brought down easily. He does not possess the strength and balance of DW4 so far. Also, I noticed him getting manhandled a few times as he tried to protect the quarterback. I want him to excel, but I'm not sure how effective he will be this year.
With a few of our receivers sitting out today, Corey Fuller was in the spotlight several times. He struggled early on with losing his balance and/or dropping balls, but then had a pair of TD grabs later on. Towards the end, the last play I noticed him on, he appeared to trip as Logan tried to throw the ball just out of bounds, allowing Exum to pull it in. Speaking of Exum, that kid hits hard. As I noted on twitter, if you try to carry or catch the ball around Antone Exum, you're gonna have a bad time. He was all over the place and looked fast, strong, and smart.
Our tight ends were utilized quite a bit with Randall Dunn being the target a couple times. He and Ryan Malleck each had a nice reception (Dunn may have had one more). Malleck looks big and athletic. Hopefully we see a lot of him this year.
The quarterbacks (Thomas and Gresh. Not sure where Leal was.) lined up in what appeared to be 50/50 center and pistol. I don't remember seeing any shotgun and that ratio may be way off. I just seemed to notice it was about 50/50, changing as drives progressed. Logan seemed to be doing fine. Pretty much every incompletion was the fault of his receiver. I guess without Coles and Davis it's natural to see more drops, but a lot of receivers kept losing their balance. Not sure what that was about. Thomas did have two INTs. One was just a ball that should have been a little further out of bounds. The other was thrown into too much coverage and the receiver fell down if I recall correctly. His accuracy seems to be very good though. Hopefully our receivers really pull it together.
4th and Logan works even when Logan is in a no-contact jersey. Easiest 5 yards ever, even when our own defense knows it's coming.
The D-Line was dominant as usual. After one TFL, Kris Harley could be heard screaming so menacingly that I feared for my life. That dude is big and mean. Remind me to never mess with him. Ever. While the sack stats will always be skewed when the QB is in a yellow jersey, know that the defense was in the backfield almost every play, especially against the second team offense.
The kicking situation was hit/miss. The kickers weren't wearing the right numbers half the time so I can't identify who was who. I guess Beamer is still deciding if they are going to be on the roster. Demler boomed a couple in the warm-ups but I don't remember seeing him punting in the scrimmage. Half the punts went for about 30 yards, but a couple had some decent distance on them. One punter in particular bobbled the snap more than once, with one getting blocked. Kyshoen Jarrett returned one for a couple yards and looked like he was one block away from having a big return. Our field-goal unit was decent at best. One kick was blocked, at least one miss from short. Not too excited there.
That's about all I can think of right now. Again, take all this info with a grain of salt as they are just my observations/opinions/recollections.
In no particular order
1) Dunn needs to be incorporated as much as possible in the passing game. I don't care how bad of a blocker he is he needs to be on the field.
2) Saw some pistol, a few of the big runs came from the pistol look.
3) #ALLOFTHEDROPS, you could tell we missed our 1 and 2 receivers out there.
4) I'd guess around 50 percent of the snaps were from some sort of spread look.
5) Vinston Painter was pretty solid today, especially when going up against Gayle. On one pass play he easily pushed Gayle backwards about 3 yards.
6) I saw a fair amount of pre snap motions from the offense Including changing from an I formation to shotgun. As StLHokie said, there were a bunch of misdirection plays. More than I've ever seen from this offense before. Dyrell was involved in a lot of misdirection.
7) It's clear Holmes is the starting back. The backups aren't really stepping up. JC is good in space but he is not meant for between the tackles play. Drew Harris could easily take Coleman's number 2 spot in august.
Just got back from the scrimmage, things I noticed.
1) We were running a good amount of plays out of the Pistol formation today. At first it was mostly just second team, but as the scrimmage went on, the first team started using it a bit more. Seemed like most of the plays coming out of the various pistol formations were runs.
2) We ran a TON of misdirection today. Similar to how Clemson seemingly starts every play by faking a handoff to a reciever on an end around, we were doing a lot of the same. Probably a good 1/3 of the plays we ran today involved WR misdirection.
3) The misdirection and reverse plays that we were running were decent, however I don't recall seeing a single pass play after one of the fakes. Every time we ran misdirection, it was a run play, and I think the defense started catching on because by the end of the day, the offense was getting stuffed no matter who they handed the ball off to.
4) LOTS of drops by the WRs today. Marcus Davis also wasnt playing, so most of the first team snaps went to Knolwes and Fuller. Corey Fuller had probably 3 drops, but also had a nice TD catch later in the day on a fade route.
5) Martin Scales is a BEAST. He didnt get too many reps today, maybe 8 or 9 carries max, but he was breaking tackles ala David Wilson and he was also putting some moves on guys in the open field.
6) The offensive line is still struggling. Or maybe its that the lffensive line is getter better at the same rate as the defensive line.
7) Connor Goulding had some really nice field goals today, I think he made every one that he kicked and that included two that were 35+. I think he'll be getting the nod at kicker. Punting, Branthover had a bomb they went probably 55-60 yards, but there were also a few shanks. Nowhere near the 20 yard shanks of last year, but hitting a 35 yard punt isnt the best thing in the world.
Here are my feelings on the state of Tech basketball:
I'm here. Providing commentary on my twitter if anyone is interested I'll post more later when I'm not on my phone. Quick notes: Exum hits hard, Coleman is struggling at blocking, and our punting is inconsistent.
It is certainly interesting to talk to other Tech fans about the offense. I could care less about offense being exciting, because I believe that you can run any system if your execution is outstanding and you have complete buy-in by your players. In order to be champions, every player on the field should believe that if the coach calls a fullback dive on 3rd and 7, not only will they get the 1st down, but they will score. Execution and buy-in can mitigate talent.
When I played in college, we had perhaps the most predictable I formation offense in history. Our offensive line coach and OC used to tell us that we weren't trying to trick anyone. I can guarentee you, we ran a counter-trey on 35% of our running plays, and if we were 1st a goal, we were running speed option to the short side of the field or we were running bootleg to the short side of the field. And, with everyone in the stadium knowing what we were running, we won 4 straight ODAC titles and had a 47 game home winning streak. Execution is key, not innovation or aggression.
I'd be willing to bet last year's Hokie team lead the country in completions over 15 yards, especially where the ball travelled over 15 yards in the air before the catch. Al Davis would have been envious of our vertical passing game. What killed us in big spots (vs Clemson and Michigan) was the inability to run the ball effectively to compliment the passing game.
One last thought before I head to DC for my flag game. Remember, these "innovative offenses" are not really innovative at all. Clemson's offense is the single wing, which harkens to the days of Red Grange and Ernie Nevers. The spread that Oregon is running is splitback veer, which has been around at least since the invention of the wishbone. These are not new concepts, but as defenses are redesigned to stop the newest "thing", people adjust. I am curious to see when the "T" offense (pro splitbacks or near/far formation) makes it's return to college football.
French, you say it more elegantly and with such greater detail than I could, but I have the exact same opinion about the VT offense. If VT wants to excel on offense, they need that arrogant, "this my f'ing offense" coordinator who believes in his own offense. Could you imagine Urban Meyer or Chip Kelley adding new offensive schemes that they retrieved from the former Boise offensive coordinator? Hell no. They have their own offense and they run that to perfection, because it's THEIR OWN.
As long as VT is dominant on defense and special teams, I'll be happy. But, I'm not expecting VT to all the sudden become an offensive juggernaut. It won't happen, but I just hope the coaches don't muck up the offense so much the O-line and everyone else look lost. We need the athletes to make plays, not to think about "oh, wait, what do I do in the pistol?"
even before teel's column ... it had nothing to do with the money.
he's a jerk.
You make a solid point with the fact of too many cooks in the kitchen who's really making the calls on offense part of the the lack of identity is a microcosim of the overall offensive coaching staff
Okay, yes, you and I are actually in complete agreement, though as I read the OP I was starting to honestly think you wanted us running the same formation every down. It's a blocking issue. It has been for years. The question is why. I know everyone has their theories, but after six season I'm sold that Newsome is all potatoes, no meat. I just think he's in over his head in 1A football. Like you pointed out, he's got his lines trying to block a different way for each formation we trot onto the field.
Then again, is that Newsome or Stinespring? Stiney is the one who loves him some buffet style offense: a little of this, a little of that, and you just kind of mix it all together on one plate.
I actually like the idea of us using the pistol. I think the formation has a LOT to offer our current offensive roster and their particular skill sets. And if nothing else, it will eliminate that goddam twelve yard deep handoff to the tailback five seconds after the snap. But how the hell are Newsome and Stinespring going to draw up the blocking schemes for it? If they've got our line trying to block a fifth different way for our fifth different offensive package, we might as well cork the pistol now.
But seriously, WHY do we not dedicate ourselves to one blocking scheme and build our packages around that?
A great example of this is the Clemson game in Charlotte. Clemson only had 2 guys from the guard-center-guard of the Hokies all game long, with NOBODY but those two guys in between the football and the endzone on the snap. They stacked everything to stop the Hokies from running the ball outside the tackles, and because the Hokies had no inside running game to counter their outside running game, they couldn't make Clemson pay, and when the Hokies got behind the sticks it allowed Branch and Thompson to pin their ears back and get Thomas.
Honestly, I don't think the system is antiquated. I thought the offensive playcalling the last two seasons has been as aggressie as any offensive gameplan in the country (with the exception of stretches of the Michigan game.)
The problem is that other programs create a system, which they work to perfect, and then the Hokies coaching staff adopts bits and pieces of it. You read it yourself, the coaching staff went to Texas for a short coaching clinic with the former Boise offensive coordinator, or they picked up the power play that Cam Newton and Tim Tebow excelled at. Offense is a system, a system where every play as action and movement that sets up another play so defenses can not key on it. Last season, the Hokies were running, in essence, three different offensive systems at the same time, and none of those systems featured the full compliment of plays, player packages, or options that it would have as a base offense for another team. That allows defenses to key on certain actions, while forcing offensive players to be mentally responsible for multiple types of plays that have different action and movement. That is tough for NFL players, and really unfair to college kids who are still maturing and who have academic responsibilities off the field. Face it, if you think too much on a football field, it ties up your feet.
On defense, you know that if you are a defensive end, your first season you will learn your reads, keys, and stunts for Bud Foster's defense. In year 2, you get into the rotation in practice, and you are probably thinking through each play, which causes you to "play slow" (remember, play fast is a term you hear the defensive coaches use all the time.) In years 3 and 4, you have had enough repetition to develop muscle memory, and your brain automatically responds each play on the field, and you have a defense that most of the time looks dominant WITHOUT HAVING ELITE DOMINANT TALENT.
Meanwhile, on offense, those kids who are learning in year 1 are having to pick up an entirely new set of footwork fundamentals, blocking rules, and line calls every year they make these changes and additions. How many times did you watch a Redskins game when Jason Campbell was QB and the announcers mentioned that he had a different OC every year in college and in the pros. It is a huge disadvantage.
So, you ask what a guy like me, who played for awhile but doesn't have coaching experience, knows that the Hokie coaches don't know. And, I think the answer is very simple. There are too many cooks in the kitchen, and none of the offensive coaches have the authority or the mindset (including Beamer) to completely commit to one style of offense, yet at the same time, I think they have felt the heat from fans who were raised on running post-corners in Madden 2000 to be "more aggressive, more innovative" etc. on offense and they have tried to add wrinkles to add that aspect. Mike O'Cain is the one guy who could be that voice (his work with Logan Thomas deserves a ton of credit), but his influence is only felt in the passing game and he is not a guy that is well grounded in the run game. The other coaches on offense are their for their recruiting (Stinespring, Beamer) or they are old guard Beamer. Those are not the kind of folks (who have value) that come in and "be the boss" on offense.
Who knows, this may be the year that they really do jump the shark and go spread full time. The QB's and RB's they are recruiting fit that system. The video from last weekend shows everything in a spread look. They could be trying to make the move. But, if we go to the spring game next week, and we see one series of one back, one series of I, one series out of the gun where they only run pass pro and draw plays, and one series of single wing spread and zone reads, I may lose what little hair I have left.
It is moments like this where I wish I figured out how to use an online play editor to use the wing-t offense buck sweep series to show how an offense builds an identity. On the 38 series, there are four basic plays. Every play uses the same backfield action; the offensive line basically blocks the same every play with slight variations by the pulling guard, and the defense has to account for every eligible player on the field. With the same movement, defenses have to account for an interior fullback trap (which is actually the "big play" play), the buck sweep, an inside reverse, and a bootleg where two guys are always open (ALWAYS) on a non-passing down.
The same type of mindset should have been built around the Logan Thomas zone read power play, but with a very rare exception, counters were never used (speed option-see first touchdown against UVA, QB counter, slot counter, bootleg, Y dump off play action). Those plays keep a defense from completely selling out on the lead play, which is why Cam Newton and Tim Tebow were so effective. If their teams didn't keep the defense honest with those counters (see Florida's loss to Alabama in the last Tebow SEC Championship) the lead play is rendered ineffective.
I addressed this below as to my background, but I can tell you, while the Hokie offensive coaches have become more innovative and MUCH more aggressive in the passing game (how many times would you have seen Marcus Vick throwing a double move for a touchdown with a lead and time winding down in a half?) They have to improve on the fundamentals, not the playcalling and aggression.
I don't start my masters until next year. So I will be unable to try out for walk on kicker this year (also I am still job searching around Blacksburg). I have the feeling that our OL is going to be abysmal the first half of the season. We have a tough schedule this year and with the OL we may struggle to win this year. The good news is it may keep LT3 here another year.
but incorporate two (or more) different sets that can keep the same blocking schemes in place.
on the head with part of the reasons for trying different offensive sets :... our offense just seems SO predictable, conservative -- Thats a huge problem and has been for years thing is I agree with French on most points rather go all in on at least a base offensive identity and recruit that way to maximize the out-put instead of plug in holes in a leaky system
i've felt that way ... about our offensive in general for a long time ... but last season it really came to a head when i see our offense, a decent offense, getting knocked around by clemson mediocre defense (aside from a few d-lineman) TWICE ... and then at the end of the season, literally watch west virginia rip that same defense's ass apart .. and i'm thinking to myself the entire team .. our offensive talent is EVERY BIT AS GOOD ... EVEN BETTER than west virginia ... i know it's a lot more complicated than that .. and it's only one game ... our offense just seems SO predictable, conservative -- it's like we're content in letting the defense win the battles and our offense score ENOUGH to get by -- it's frustrating
i've been wanting VT to move to a spread (or single wing) or something .. for a long time --- not necessarily all-out -- but it would be nice to see 50% pro sets, 50% spread/pistol/whatever sets
what's your background french?? you seem to REALLY know your shit ... i don't profess to know enough about blocking fundamentals or overall offensive strategy to have an intelligent conversation about it ... but it would seem to me that if someone on a message board who can talk/speak pretty intelligently about this (and please don't take that as an insult -- it's meant to be very complimentary), then why wouldn't offensive coaches of a perennial top 25 D-1 program be thinking the same way?? again -- that's meant to be very complimentary of you
to disclose, i try not to get on the same bullshit bandwagon that all of the other "fire stinespring"ers get on -- but your opinion -- is VT's offensive identity antiquated, ancient ??? and is bryan stinespring WAY in over his head like others believe??
i try not to beat up on the offensive line like others do either .. but i've never felt like we've really had the big'uns up front to trully play "smash mouth", I-formation, alabama-like offensive football. based on us (historically) having a smaller, quicker o-line and great talent at qb/rb/wr .... spreading the defense out has always seemed more sensible to me ... but hey -- what the hell do i know?? :)
That would depend on your definition of a "multiple offense." I am focused on blocking scheme. Let's take our defending national championship team, Alabama. Alabama run a small number of running plays, using the same blocking fundamentals (in their case utilizing a straight ahead zone power with down blocking and pulling) on every running play. These fundamentals NEVER change, even though they run the same basic play out of a bewildering variety of formations and motion combinations. The linemen use the same muscle memory, the same movement, and have relatively consistent assignments. Blocking in a system like Oregon (veer, which uses double teams while leaving an option man unblocked and requires much shorter blocking engagement) is very different from Clemson's (downblocking/counter action), which is very different from Alabama's.
On the other hand, the Hokies do a little bit of everything. One series, you see two tight ends (always motioning and always lined up to the power side, never balanced) and they run a zone play or power series. The zone play requires everyone zone blocking to playside and maintaining their blocks (which rarely works because the Hokies linemen traditionally have not been athletic enough or they have had quick guys that don't have enough lead in their pencil to avoid being driven backwards.) Meanwhile, the power play, which resembles the old Green Bay power sweep, features downblocking by the two TE's and tackle, with the guard pulling around creating a seal on the corner. It only requires the downblockers to cut off penetration and the angle of the block cuts off pursuit even if they fail to hold the block. Meanwhile, the guard often matches up with a corner or safety, which is a mismatch. Even in one "set/series" that the Hokies run, there is two different styles of blocking, and the results vary WILDLY.
Now, the next series they run I formation, where the Hokies have been completely unsuccessful running the ball the last two seasons, yet do an outstanding job in the screen game. The next series, the Hokies come out in the shotgun, in which all the running plays feature some veer blocking and some single wing power blocking similar to their sweep.
The results speak for themselves. The Hokies offense has been woefully inconsistent, even on a series to series basis, and especially in key short yardage down and distance situations. This is even more frustrating when you take into account that since the begining of the Tyrod Taylor era, the offense has had a much higher talent level than the defense. Variations are ok, but you have to have a core identity, or what I would call a "bread and butter" offense where, if you need to run the clock out to win a ball game by getting first downs, you can do it. The Hokies have improved all aspects of the passing game (except interior blitz pickups) to the point where they have an identity there. They must do the same for the running game.
If they decide to go zone read, gun, spread as that bread and butter, then the offensive coaches must get Beamer's buy-in and they must embrace it the way Oregon has. If not, then they need to refine the current system to tighten up the blocking fundamentals.
This sound like an argument that teams should never use a multiple offense.
Some of the highlights are up on hokiesports.com
http://www.hokiesports.com/videos/football/#
The touchdown by Holmes was a great example of the misdirection we were seeing with Roberts and Knowles.