Fuente UNC Postgame Interview.

Fuente talked in pretty good detail about the state of the defense for this game, including having so many players out. The interview gave quite a bit of insight into what the coaching staff was thinking during the game.

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.

Comments

Not sure what interview he said it, but the fact the staff was wondering during the game what offensive players could play on the backend of the defense says a lot.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

I mean they couldnt do any worse at the LB spot atleast.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

I'm sorry but for all the fire fuente crowd and this is our ceiling crowd; you have to take this season into context. As CJF also said it doesn't excuse some of the other issues but it wasn't like it was a full defense. And as he stated and we know UNC has an offense. And sometimes no matter how good your plan is the other team just executes better.

Obviously would have loved the win, guys played tough all game. I'm looking forward to BC.

Go Hokies!

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

I would say the entire staff/team gets a "pass" for this year, but that would be understating the challenges that they have collectively been forced to address this year. When a team continuously is having to deal with double-digit absences from games its leaves you incredibly short-handed and it makes preparation a complete PITA. As far as prep work goes this team and staff has earned my respect - I'm just hopeful we can get back to being completely healthy and really demonstrate what we're capable of at full strength.

Context: Everyone on the front 7 - with the exception of Crawford was available from the projected 2-deep. And they got mauled the entire game. You don't fix that in one - or 7- weeks, covid or no covid. UNC has a legit ACC OL, and they did what they wanted. This is not an outlier for this year or totally covid related. Dax? average at best. Ashby? non factor until RB was 6 yards past the LOS. Huge concern moving forward

Everyone on the front 7 - with the exception of Crawford was available from the projected 2-deep. And they got mauled the entire game.

Hands down this is the most concerning part of the game for me. We were as close to full strength in the trenches defensively as we could get, and we got whooped worse than most FCS teams do in their annual Power 5 matchup. Most of the game their RBs were getting 7-10 yards downfield before the first defender got a hand on him. Not counting their last possession where they took a knee on the 3 yard line, only 3 of their possessions didn't end in a TD, and two of them stopped because of a wide open drop by a receiver on 3rd down.

Defensively, I can't recall a worse showing. And I'm not limiting that to just VT. I cannot recall a team looking worse than that defensively, ever. I know that 2018 defense against Pitt was bad, but when I really think about it, this was worse. UNC had their way with us. If they wanted to score 100 on us, they could have. They thoroughly dominated us in every facet of the game on our defensive side of the ball this week.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

Defensively, I can't recall a worse showing. And I'm not limiting that to just VT. I cannot recall a team looking worse than that defensively, ever.

Did you see the second half of the Alabama Ole Miss game?
/s

Proud author of one plaid comment.

Amen. If you know football, and see simple back to back counter plays go for 15 yards a pop, you don't belong on the field with the opposing team. UNC's game plan was crystal clear from the start. Run off tackle, and get the ball out of Howell's hands very quickly. We did absolutely nothing to adjust on defense to that.

WVU 70 - Clemson i don't remember

I don't remember either and I was there!

Defensively, I can't recall a worse showing. And I'm not limiting that to just VT. I cannot recall a team looking worse than that defensively, ever

You need to watch more Big 12 football, and I'm not being facetious. Just as an example:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2012/09/29/baylor-west-virginia-hi...

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Jet Sweep

Agree but this is not unexpected. We are transitioning from Foster's defense to a different scheme and some of the players we have don't fit that scheme well. We will struggle more on defense this year.

And while COVID did not necessarily affect the front 7 for this weeks game it seems that it has limited practice time for nearly everyone going back to fall camp. Those are lost reps and learning opportunities that are affecting us now.

I dont believe this is a "this year" problem. There were clear signs of this issue going back a couple years (Pitt and GT in '18 comes to mind) and it does not appear to be getting any better. I would expect, barring some major epiphanies, that we're going to see this occur again a couple more times against teams that have a competent run game.

I don't see how 2018 has anything to do with what happened Saturday. We turned over most of our defensive staff from that period. The problems were different. We didn't see teams run all over us in 2019 which would have happened if today's problem was the same as 2018.

2018 is extremely relevant because at least 4 of the starting front 7 are the exact same guys who were getting embarrassed two years ago.

Why it didn't happen as much last year, I don't know, but it was the same guys and the same problem so it deserves the comparison.

So last year they were ok which mean that they could be ok this year if things were the same. But things aren't the same. Perhaps it has more to do with the differences than the same players.

Last year their coach was one of the best to ever do it. This year, they are playing 5 yards off the LOS and look like fish out of water.

So probably not the same problems as 2018, which was my point.

Easily the biggest difference I have noticed thus far. The LB's are playing more off the LOS, Especially the Mike. I guess that's Claey's deal? Foster had those guys much tighter. We will see if it works.

They start off farther back but they are coming up and getting washed out of plays.

A combination of line being blown off the ball and linebackers not being great in space.

Also as French pointed out some head scratching reads that either start in the wrong direction or leave the LB flat footed

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Last year against UNC, Ashby had 4 solo tackles and 13 assists. This year he had 2 solo, 4 assists. Dax had more tackles than Ashby this year. Hewitt only had 1 assist against UNC. DL and LB play was awful.

You coach to your roster, or else you don't force a critical punt all game. UNC running through our defense in between the tackles the entire game was not "expected" by anyone that I could recall.

Maybe not to the level that occurred but the defense was going to struggle this year. Also how many of those long TD runs don't happen if Deablo or Jenkins are filling gap instead of Matheny?

How many passes are broken up as well?

Proud author of one plaid comment.

Jenkins has played 2 games, so i dunno.

You coach to your roster,

That could also be used as a justification for taking a chance on going for it on fourth down. Coach Fu (MIGHT have thought), "Our defense is not doing it for us in this game. If we can get a first down, we can keep our defense off the field." It didn't work but through the game I thought he demonstrated (example, the on side kick) that he was willing to take risks in order to give the team a chance to win.

Ut Prosim Ad Dei Gloriam

Wasn't one of the supposed advantages to going the in-house, cheaper route with J-Ham that his scheme would at least be similar to Bud, and would minimize disruption rather than requiring an all-out defensive rebuild? Tougher to believe that the way that the DTs were getting blown off the ball and Dax was trying to tackle with his shoulders 15 yards down the field at first contact.

And that doesn't even address the fact that Tech brought back nine starters (I believe) on defense. Squandering that level of experience with a rebuild is a real problem, especially in year five. And COVID has highlighted the depth problems on the defensive side of the ball too.

Maybe in a year with spring practice (Tech had zero) or summer workouts or where you new DC wasn't out for two weeks and the new LB coach wasn't out.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

I don't think that's true. I think they went cheaper with JHam because Foster believed he is and will be a terrific coach and saving money on him allowed the Teerlinck hire. We were going to get bigger on the D-line. This seems like repercussions of having the smaller guys Wiles liked to get, only without the twitch of the guys he had success with. And our linebackers aren't even the type of guys we had a lot of success with on defense in the past - really mobile guys, and I guess the biggest part was their ability to read plays well, which also seems to be lacking from our LB corps. I think the D-line is the true rebuild, JHam probably wants the type of guys we used to have for LB, we just don't really have them on the roster. And D-backs we're probably good with if we could keep them non COVIDized.

Wasn't one of the supposed advantages to going the in-house, cheaper route with J-Ham that his scheme would at least be similar to Bud, and would minimize disruption

Nope. When Wiles was released it was pretty clear we were moving in a different direction. I think everyone expected a more pro-friendly scheme.

The biggest problem is the lack of practice time (no spring, disjointed fall camp once it started)

I don't often agree with DC, but he's absolutely right here. DL is being asked to do very different things than they were asked to do under Bud, and it shows. Undersized, quick defensive linemen can be great for shooting gaps, but asking them to clog the middle won't work. That's not getting fixed this year. JHam/TnT don't have the personnel to do what they want to do, and they'll need a couple of recruiting classes to clean it up.

LB's have been just plain bad. I don't know what else to say about them.

What's most concerning is...where is the DT help going to come from? I see what they are trying to do with bigger, longer ends but there isn't any help coming in the next recruiting class to address the glaring problems on the interior of the line.

It's not coming. The prototypical quick, undersized DT's Bud / Wiles used weren't highly recruited because they don't fit most teams' defensive schemes. That made it easier to find what they needed to get the job done.

But what JHam / TnT are trying to do requires bigger DT's, and those aren't as common. Plus you have to compete with the blue bloods and their money to get them. In a way you can think of this like Navy suddenly switching to a pro style offensive scheme. Maybe it will work, but who knows?

Good take on the D line size issue, It all hinges on recruiting. If you can get the big dogs, you can run the scheme. Only time will tell if we can get the big boys to come to tech .

To be fair, Dax was bad last week as well and Tisdale should start at that spot the whole year. Ashby looked overweight and it's definitely affecting his speed.

Ashby will always and has always looked a little soft since he's 5'10" and is listed at 245lbs.

As CJF also said it doesn't excuse some of the other issues

Those were the other issues I was referencing. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

Our D line has been too small for years and the previous regime said they recruited twitch and not always size. I have never understood why you would want small quick lineman. Ends and LB's makes a little more sense. I think we should look at the SEC and copy what they're doing with their D lineman. 6 ft to 6'3 Large 300's to 320's or more lineman that are extremely hard to move off the ball. Most years we have persistently been pushed around by good teams. That's one of the reasons we don't beat top 5 teams!! Games are won and lost in the trenches.

This was brutal. Looked like he was experiencing every emotion from the game at once and trying to contain it all. Frustrated that he had to send his players out there under the circumstances.

I wish he would have given an better answer as to why we gave Hooker a series AFTER BB led a TD drive and then didn't see him again til the second half. My only guess is he was afraid HH would be rusty and wanted to protect him.

Proud author of one plaid comment.

I listened to that a few times now. I was going to write a column with some thoughts, but the weekend got away from me with editorial work.

Fuente sounded extremely frustrated, and rightfully so. It's very easy to understand why the secondary had its issues, and it's a very tough circumstance to overcome. The struggles inside the box though, those seem less excusable based on the known information.

I am concerned by Fuente's evaluation of what Burmeister brings to the offense. He thought enough of him to essentially name him QB 1a before the season and he said multiple times he could develop an effective offense around any of the three QBs. And while Burmeister does add something to the run attack, it's not nearly enough to overcome what Hooker does through the air. Fuente was marketed as a "quarterbacks guy", but there's been a couple of instances now where everyone with a set of eyes, except him, knows who the best quarterback on the roster is. His remarks this week and last week did little to ease any of my concerns.

And while Burmeister does add something to the run attack, it's not nearly enough to overcome what Hooker does through the air.

100% this. If HH doesn't start next week at BC it will be head scratching. HH I think cemented his role as QB1 in the second half. His play gave me more confidence in him and I think he has progressed since last year. He just seemed more confident but perhaps that was mine in HH.

As for CJF being the QB guy I have to think he sees things in practice that we dont'. Perhaps, as stated above JF just wanted to ease HH in a little more and HH needed less time than perhaps CJF realized. There is some nuance to it.

But I think going forward if HH isnt' the starter then I don't why b/c as you said BB brings more to the run game I think, but not so much as to overshadow what HH brings to the passing game that BB doesn't have.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

From the UNC game:
QBR
Hooker: 81.9
Burmeister: 39.8

Previous games:
Burmeister vs. Duke: 37.5
Burmeister vs. NCST: 45.8
Patterson vs. NCST: 95.0

🦃 🦃 🦃

Serious question, does QBR take into account the running of the QB?

yes, it does. It probably skews more towards passing metrics, but it definitely considers rush yards, rush per attempt, and rush TDs.

QP's numbers for NCST are so good because he scored 3 TDs (2 passing, 1 rushing), relatively high completion percentage (4/6), and high yards/attempt passing (12.5).

🦃 🦃 🦃

Ok thanks.

The only thing I can think of is maybe BB shows better in practice? Maybe he plays with more confidence and thinks less knowing it doesn't matter, but in games isn't playing the same? So Fu keeps playing him hoping/expecting for the level of play he sees in practice? Similar to how we heard so much about how, based on practice, Blackshear was incredibly talented. I expected him to come out and be running the ball, breaking off large chunks of yards, and taking passes for long yards. He does seem talented, but not like I was expecting from what we heard in the offseason.

Maybe BB has just looked better throwing in practice against our D and so we expected better results on gamedays? In any case, It's plainly obvious at this point that Hooker is our most complete QB and should be playing if healthy.

Proud author of one plaid comment.

Possibly, but it seems as if we're all very generous in the benefit of the doubt here.

Oh, I'm just offering up a possible explanation. Not sure I believe it. I definitely think BB is a good runner, but HH just seems... better all around. So it boggles my mind. I do get having trepidation about putting HH into a game like UNC if he hadn't been able to practice much and might be rusty. Glad they finally put him in and he did well.

Ha, not ALL of us. Personally, I don't think the "BB is a practice beast" theory is accurate. I think Fu is an ultra conservative guy and he doesn't want to send a QB out there who is less than 100% prepared. He would rather send out the guy with the most practice reps and trust his system for as long as he can. But he sticks with the system too long and should put a little more trust in his most dynamic play-makers.

The idea that he just can't tell which QB runs the offense better seems unlikely to me.

Proud author of one plaid comment.

I think Fu is an ultra conservative guy and he doesn't want to send a QB out there who is less than 100% prepared

I think you hit the nail on the head here. I can recall interviews with Fuente where he talked about his experience as a college QB where he lost his confidence at Oklahoma because he felt unprepared. People want to focus on the practice reps but we also don't know the conversations Fuente is having with the QBs on a regular basis. Also we know that Hooker has dealt with some injuries (shoulder to start last year, leg injury v UNC last year, undisclosed health issue held him out for several weeks this year) and I believe that only magnifies Fuente's desire to protect him. Personally I don't think Fuente truly views Burmeister as equal to Hooker or he wouldn't have publicly named Hooker QB1 prior to the season and again early this week; however, Fuente still recognizes that Burmeister is valuable to the program and wants to project confidence in him.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

I still think the main reason is Hooker's preseason health scare. As far as I'm aware they've never really given a concrete timeframe for what/when things transpired, but we know he missed a lot of practice and took him a while to be medically cleared. To the point where even though he was technically cleared before N.C. State, it sounds like he didn't practice every day until the UNC game.

Unfortunately, we're never going to find out what happened, unless anyone here is friends with Hooker. But I would have to guess that since no one is willing to speak on it, including Hooker himself, it was troublesome. Having said that, I think once it was clear he is healthy and in game shape, he needs to start. That could have been last week, that could have been this week. All I know is he is in for B.C. and we don't have to worry about a D.J. Durkin situation.

I think it is easy to get enamored with his legs, which are pretty electric. I have to think that Hooker looks horrendous in practice too which makes it tough for couches to trust you.

Given the performance by the D this past weekend (and the previous ones, 1st qtr against NCST being throw out as the outlier) I would say that's extremely possible.

In my humble worthless opinion I agree!!! "Fuente was marketed as a "quarterbacks guy", but there's been a couple of instances now where everyone with a set of eyes, except him, knows who the best quarterback on the roster is."
I like Burmeister, great runner good quarterback, I just think that Hooker is the better all around QB right now. Lets all remember that these kids picked and play for VT, be very careful of your critiques. I saw some uncalled for comments about Dax. Dax is a good player, in his first two years has made alot of great plays, and brings the energy. On Saturday the whole defense did not play well, they dont need your dumb non-athletic #$!*@ to tell them that with over the top and foolish comments. When you are in front of the televisions set, alone or with a group, is one thing, but when you post on this and other boards it is another. It is ok to be critical and state that a player was missing tackles or was out of position, or did not play well, but always follow it up with positive reinforcement, "he is better than that", "he needs to work on that" etc ...

SandbridgeHokieFan

This reminds me a bit when Sean Glennon outperformed Tyrod Taylor during practice. When QBs aren't taking shots during practice they perform very differently from games.

And Sean Glennon on more than one occassion performed better than Tryod in games.

SandbridgeHokieFan

A

SandbridgeHokieFan

Glennon is likely better than almost every QB we've had since Tyrod. Glennon also played behind a fairly bad O'line.

Let me correct that for you...

Glennon is likely better than almost every QB we've had since Tyrod. Glennon also played behind a fairly epically bad O'line.

You must be referring to Mike Glennon...because Sean was MEH.

Edit: and yes, we missed out on getting Mike Glennon when he picked NCSt.

Let's Go

HOKIES

I know what I said. Sean Glennon would have been FAR better behind a competent O'line. Tyrod was the QB we needed to bail us out when the pocket collapsed every play.

Sean was so much better than his reputation with the fanbase.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Yes. SEAN Glennon was accurate when not pressured, which unfortunately was often. He needed a better mental timer and sometimes didn't notice when the pocket was collapsing around him, but in fairness to him it collapsed way too quickly way too often.

Then you think he would have gotten used to it.

Sean Glennon did not fit Beamer's offense. VT didn't have an offensive line (that could pass block) or pro receivers to play in a purely pro-style offense. And with Tyrod on the bench, they weren't going to overhaul the scheme for 1 QB.

Offensive line, correct. But he had pro receivers, one of which came with him from high school.

His biggest flaw was reading + slow release which did not jive with that line.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

And he earned that reputation during the 4th quarter of the Peach bowl.

I was at that game and...man that was painful to watch

Glennoning is when you need 1 first down to win the game and you don't get it. Also known as pulling a Glennon. It appears to be hereditary.

I think Fuente is entirely too calculated sometimes. He constantly preaches "expected outcomes," and I think that he believes continuity goes into that. That's why Willis started last year at first instead of Hooker for sure. I believe that's why Burmeister started against UNC as well. I just wish Fuente could take a step back every once in awhile and think "this guy gives us our best shot to win, so I'm going to go with him." Instead, it seems like he thinks "I'm trying to build a culture here and part of that is continuity." Winning builds culture. If you need to break up a little continuity to win, then by all means do it.

Marshall University graduate.
Virginia Tech fanatic.
Formerly known as JWillHokieAlum.

This is kind of where I'm at. Fuente's philosophy is clearly "plug in the guys who are most prepared and trust the system" over "get the ball in the hands of the most dynamic athlete and hope for the best".

Proud author of one plaid comment.

I haven't ever heard a coach say that they thought BB was as good as HH, only that he deserved some time. In a run heavy scheme, like mop up or bad weather, I think I would rather risk BB than HH. In any normal circumstance, HH makes the offense better overall. With all that said though, was BB really so bad Saturday or do we just associate blowout with BB and assume he was horrible?

Also, lets not pretend Hooker didn't have some questionable throws of his own. Hopefully just rust.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

I agree HH should start and BB and QP should help us run out the clock once we have a nice lead.

1st half under BB: UNC 35 VT 14
2nd half under HH: UNC 21 VT 31

A clear difference. Also, the offense in the 1st half vs Duke was not confidence inspiring.

Proud author of one plaid comment.

it kills me that if we didn't blow that drive at the end of the first half, that would read

1st half under BB: UNC 28 VT 21
2nd half under HH: UNC 21 VT 31

And, if I've done my math correctly, that means we win (or, that UNC puts in their last TD instead of kneeling it out and we still lose, but whatever)

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

Yeah the end of that 1st half was a huge blunder. I had forgotten about that TBH.

Looking at the box score just makes me more and more angry. Going down 21-0 in the first really hurt us (obviously). We outscored them the rest of the way even if you give them their complimentary end of the game TD.

This is bothersome because we know that usually the first few series on offense are scripted beforehand. So either our plan or our execution was not great bob. A little bit of production in that 1st quarter could have gone a LONG way even with our swiss cheese defense.

Proud author of one plaid comment.

And, if I've done my math correctly, that means we win (or, that UNC puts in their last TD instead of kneeling it out and we still lose, but whatever)

In all honesty it probably means that BB starts the 2nd half, we go three and out, UNC continues to score at will, and we are still chasing the game, but still ....

Proud author of one plaid comment.

You forgot about the TD at the very end of the game they didn't punch in. They still won.

or did I?

And, if I've done my math correctly, that means we win (or, that UNC puts in their last TD instead of kneeling it out and we still lose, but whatever)

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

Your whole post was revisionist scores to say we won. Throwing in at the end that they punch it in invalidates everything else you said. So maybe didn't "forget" about it, but odd to say all that, say if your math is right, we won - only we didn't.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

I guess one question would be how many of BB's 12 runs should he have just handed the ball off to KH.

If they were zone reads it's likely that the read was for BB to keep, which seems reasonable given that unc would be keying to stop KH.

Looking forward to Finch's review to understand this better.

Looking forward to Finch's review to understand this better.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

Stupid autocorrect. I'm just gonna leave it cause it's too funny.

I haven't ever heard a coach say that they thought BB was as good as HH, only that he deserved some time.

Agree, Fuente said he earned playing time ahead of the season. Yet, actions speak louder than words, Fuente started Burmeister over Hooker against UNC.

With all that said though, was BB really so bad Saturday or do we just associate blowout with BB and assume he was horrible?

Well, my eye test says Hooker played better. But more importantly, UNC respected Hooker's ability to throw, they didn't show the same respect to Burmeister, and that helped them wrangle the run game and limit Tech's offense.

When Burmeister was lined up as QB the entire UNC defense appeared to be lined up within 10 yards of the line. They had no respect whatsoever for his arm throwing it.

In a run heavy scheme, like mop up or bad weather, I think I would rather risk BB than HH.

Maybe you have something there. Perhaps the coaches got a little too keyed into the weather report.

Honestly, parts of this game seem like the gameplans against Chinballs, where Fuente got tunnel vision on one narrow aspect of the game.

Well said! I don't know why he holds others above HH but I believe HH is the best QB on our team. Hope he's our starter the rest of the year.

So I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Maybe Fuente being QB guy is the worst thing. Maybe Fuente looks a BB and says yeah I can roll with that, I can make him great. Maybe he is less objective because he has had great luck at other stops. But just because Fuente could make it work doesn't mean Corn can. And for all the hate Corn gets, he looks a lot better with Hooker or Evans back there than guys that can't throw well.

I am going to have trouble articulating this, but one of the things that I think still shows Fuente's relative youth as a head coach is that he has a tendency to "outsmart" himself by overthinking things. It is as if he is focusing so intensely on one specific aspect or on running his system, that he loses sight of some very basic tenets that are well-understood by anyone who really knows or has been around football. This latest decision is one example, but I'll give a few more to illustrate the point.

1) Georgia Tech game a few years ago. He said beforehand that points would be at a premium, but yet we chased points going for 2 with AJ Bush and later going for a TD over a field goal. Stuffed on both attempts. Later that same game, we could not kick a go-ahead field goal, but instead had to drive for a TD because we needed those points, see #2.
2) Same game. He talks about predicted outcomes, but we throw deep to Cam on 4th and 1 (after also throwing on 3rd and 1). All we needed was a 1st down. Run back to back QB sneaks. Predicted outcomes.
3) UNC game last year. The beautiful fade on 4th and goal in OT. It worked, but that was anything but a predicted outcome when QP was steam-rolling people and the defense was gassed.
4) Notre Dame in Lane, Hokies with 1st and goal at the 1. Again, no QB sneak. Instead, we take a snap from the gun, lose 5 yards, and settle for a 22yd FG. Fuente's rationale was that we'd not practiced taking snaps from under center, fans didn't understand that it wasn't that simple, etc.. 2 weeks later against GT: 2nd and goal at the 1 - we run back-to-back QB sneaks, easy TD. Predicted outcome.

I could give more examples, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes you just have to trust your gut, or go with what you know from decades of experience as a football player/coach/fan is the more likely result (predicted outcome). In this case, our evaluation on Hooker was very high from the beginning. We convinced him to enroll early. He saved the season last year. By all accounts (including Fuente's), he had an incredible fall camp. Our offense was noticeably lest potent through the air in the 1st 2 games in his absence. Braxton has some very obvious limitations throwing the ball and so does QP. Yet, we don't make the change. Why? At some point, you have to just put your best talent on the field, trust your gut that Hooker is a gamer, and let it roll. In other words, stop trying to convince yourself that BB is the better option just because he looked good in a few practices and had a few nifty runs while it may take Hooker a few plays to shake off the rust. I'm taking obvious talent over plays in practice/potential rust. When Fuente learns to do this and trust his gut, he'll grow into his full potential as a coach.

"That's it guys. Let's get out of here. That cold drink's waitin' on us, let's go." - Mike Young after win no. 300.

3 was Cornelson's call

Fair. But FU has a headset. He could've said "don't get too cute, run it in there," or something of the like.

"That's it guys. Let's get out of here. That cold drink's waitin' on us, let's go." - Mike Young after win no. 300.

Wasn't that 4th down in OT from about the 20 yard line?

Edit: it was from the 18

I was doing this from memory. I can't get it to load, but you may be correct. Was it a 4th and short? I'll eat crow if that is a bad example, but I stand by main points. Not trying to come off overly critical of Fu, I like the guy, but would like to see him grow so that his decision-making in-game is consistent with what he preaches (because I like that part).

"That's it guys. Let's get out of here. That cold drink's waitin' on us, let's go." - Mike Young after win no. 300.

Fuente called the pass on 4th and 3 and Cornelson vetoed passing for the power run 2 point conversion that QP won the game on. At least that is how I remember it when Fuente did the play by play replay during quarantine.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

You did a great job summing this up. Fuente's in-game coaching leaves a lot to be desired. I think that's one of those things that Frank did very well, but you don't really notice until it's not all there.

Yeah but I'll take Fu's time management over Frank's any day

Why's that?

He made a time management mistake at the end of the 1st half against UNC.

"That's it guys. Let's get out of here. That cold drink's waitin' on us, let's go." - Mike Young after win no. 300.

We used our last 2nd half timeout against UNC when the clock was stopped.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

The failure to run more time off the clock by waiting to snap the ball on our last drive just before half of UNC game was exacerbated by passing on 4th and three, resulting in time for UNC to score TD just before half. The announcers were commenting about snapping the ball too soon in real time. That TD was a killer.

Life is good.

That is a tough one for me. I felt we needed 7 to be in the game but not getting the first down led to 7 their way. Right or wrong, I think I would have coached that drive like needing a touchdown at the end of a game versus just a half. It is an unfortunate meh in my book.

The play call on 4th left a lot to be desired though. I almost felt like there was a miscommunication there. I also thought Tre was interfered with but you can't depend on that.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

What we needed was to either score or run out the clock trying. The mistake was letting them get the ball back with time on the clock.

Proud author of one plaid comment.

Yeah but we were on the 40 so to score you need time as well. It was a bit of catch-22. I still say needing those points was the correct mindset. Failing just came with a double whammy of a consequence.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Failing just came with a double whammy of a consequence.

That's why not giving them the ball back should have been the priority. We were getting the ball to start 2nd half remember.

Proud author of one plaid comment.

We needed both. Which is why we go onside after the 3Q scoring drive (which had a less likely success rate than the 4th and 3).

By the way how was UNC not ready for an onside kick, I was expecting it.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

I disagree. We're down two TD's with 4 minutes on the clock knowing that we're getting the ball to start the 2nd half. If you can get points that's great but the focus should have been running out the clock and keeping the ball away from UNC's offense. We snapped the ball multiple times that drive with 20+seconds on the play clock. Why? Starting the 2nd half down 14 with the ball in your hands isn't that big of a hole to climb out of. It's a much smaller hole than down 21 (again) having just been kicked in the nuts by the UNC offense, which is what ended up happening.

I'm not saying we should have punted on that 4th down. I'm saying we should have managed the clock better leading up to that. As it turned out we gave them the ball with 1:11 left on the clock and it took them 55 seconds to score.

EDIT: Mack Brown said post game that they we're expecting the onside kick and told the players to be ready. It sure didn't look like they were expecting it.

Proud author of one plaid comment.

Any normal game situation I would 100% agree. But at that point there was very little confidence anything could be done to stiffen up the defense. Remember that at this time, Fuente knows he is playing guys out of position on defense for the remainder. The only way to get back in the game was to bring the score to even and start trading blows. Its a bad spot. The team never lost fight, and part of that may be that they know the coaches were fighting too. I would have been upset if they had drained the clock out on the plus side of 50 down two scores and gotten no points.

We aren't going to convince each other. But I have enjoyed the chat. Go Hokies.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

A lack of confidence in you D is THE reason you take as much time off the clock as you can when you have the ball. If we run out the clock and get no points that's good because it means UNC hasn't scored on us again and we're continuing our drive to start the 2nd half (with admittedly worse field position).

You said yourself in the first post that failure in that spot was a double whammy. We didn't need to take that chance because no matter whether we scored or not we were getting a do-over after half time.

Proud author of one plaid comment.

this counter-argument makes no sense to me. You're saying that there was nothing our defense could do but you didn't want to end the half without getting points. But you're okay with the offense snapping the ball with lots of time left on the play clock, not get a first down (or points), punt the ball back to UNC's offense with over a minute left on the clock to do whatever they like to the defense you've already admitted was pretty terrible? And you're less upset with getting no points AND giving the ball back to UNC to get more points before half than you would have been with getting no points but preventing UNC from getting the ball back to get more points before half? That just....doesn't make any sense to me....

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

We needed a td and a td needed time. The risk is what we saw but draining time and failing to score would have still ended in an L at the end of the day.

Edit: I will put it this way. If you thought that team could overcome a 14 point deficit in the second half with that defense, you should have also been able to hold UNC from scoring in a minute. If you can't, you need a touchdown. That is why I said I would have been coaching as if the TD won the game in the 4Q because it was basically the only shot, outside of crazy luck, that team had a chance to actually win the game.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

I think you're ignoring (or downplaying) the psychological difference between being down 14 or down 21 at half. Down 14, when your offense gets the ball back to start the second half with a chance to pull within one score relatively early in the 3rd Q is a much, much different place to be in, mentally, than down 21 at half. Ideally, the offense would have moved the ball down the field and gotten points. I don't think any of us disagree on that point. What we're disagreeing about, though, is whether it's better to go into half time down 14 or down 21. I would argue that it is worse to go into half down 21 than it is to go in down 14. You're seeming to suggest that going down 14 would have been worse. That doesn't make sense to me.

Think about it in terms of possessions. If we assume that UNC is going to score every time their offense has the ball then the best thing for us to do is limit their possessions. Regardless of whether we score at the end of the half, by keeping the ball out of Howell's hands we would be limiting them at least a single possession. That would be a small win for our team. Instead we managed our time poorly, and essentially gave UNC an extra possession at the end of the half. We gave them points when we didn't need to.

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

I am arguing being down 7 was essential to win. Down 14 or 21 was only going to make a difference in how much we lose by.

You are arguing that there was no chance to stop UNC with a minute to go but somehow expect us to stop them enough in the second half to erase a 14 point deficit. That doesn't make sense to me.

You're seeming to suggest that going down 14 would have been worse

No I am not. I just would have been disappointed that we let the half expire without doing everything we could to close the gap with good field position.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

I am arguing being down 7 was essential to win.

I would say being up 7 is essential to win.

Down 14 or 21 was only going to make a difference in how much we lose by.

This is probably true. And I'm not arguing that. But if you're down any amount and are hoping for any glimmer of a chance to come back the lower that amount is, the better. I knew that game was lost when we went down 14-0 in the first Q, hadn't run the ball with Herbert, and showed little resistance defensively. But at the end of the half, if there was to be some kind of Belk Bowl against Arkansas type of miracle, we would be better off draining the clock and trying to score. Worst case, you don't score but neither does UNC. Best case, you drain the clock and score with no time left for UNC to respond. Get the ball back after half with only a 7 point deficit.

But what we did, instead, was go sorta fast, but not fast enough to catch the defense on their heels, and ultimately turn the ball over with over a minute for a really potent offense to move down the field and score before the half. I could see the argument for trying to go up-tempo and gash the defense but we didn't even do that. We gave them enough time to get set but then left a lot of time on the clock unnecessarily. And, to your point, we really messed up by not scoring any points at all. I just think that we try to score but do so in a way where if we don't, at least we don't give UNC any time to score before half. Because that would be deflating. I'm impressed with how much fight the team still had after half time, to be honest. Credit to JF and the staff for not letting the players check out. But, I still think we managed the end of the first half poorly.

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

If you thought that team could overcome a 14 point deficit in the second half with that defense, you should have also been able to hold UNC from scoring in a minute.

We outscored them by 11 in the second half so yeah I think it's possible.

Proud author of one plaid comment.

It took a low percentage onside kick and they took a knee before scoring to end the game.

Reminder, I would not have this opinion in any normal circumstance. But UNC literally scored on every possession that they did not self inflict a 3rd down stop. We were playing guys in positions they had not practiced and who had not practiced at all prior to being cleared to play. It was surely an unconventional circumstance.

I can't ever remember watching a Hokie team that I absolutely expected the defense would allow a score every possession. It was nutts.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

UNC literally scored on every possession that they did not self inflict a 3rd down stop. We were playing guys in positions they had not practiced and who had not practiced at all prior to being cleared to play.

I still think these circumstances are evidence against your strategy. And I'm not advocating that we don't go for points before half time. I'm saying that we should have run as much time off the clock as possible in the process scoring so that, worst case scenario, we don't score and we're still only down 14 and we still have the ball.

Instead we gifted them another 1st half possession against our D who we already knew couldn't stop them.

Look at it this way. You have the ball with 4 minutes left in the half. You know you're getting the ball after half time. Rank these possible outcomes of that drive in order of most to least desirable:

1 - Down 7 or 11 depending on TD or FG

2- Down 14

3- Down 21

There is no morale boost that come from "we turned the ball over on downs and got scored on again".

There is a HUGE morale boost that comes from "we're still only down 2 scores and our star QB is coming back to start the 2nd half".

Proud author of one plaid comment.

We are just saying the same thing over and over at this point. You and I have a different view of it and that is ok. I personally would rank your three options

1 might win

2 lose

3 lose by more

So on 4th and 3 I am ok with not draining the clock because I know in the only reality where I come out winning, I convert this 4th down and use the remainder of the clock to score.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

You keep talking about 4th down and I'm talking about the opportunity we wasted on all the downs before that one.

We agree that we needed to get some points on that drive. And even if we had we probably weren't going to be able to keep up with them anyway.

Proud author of one plaid comment.

Edit - already said. I'll drink.

Second this. I think Frank wasn't the best in game coach. The moment we get up 2 TD's, the foot comes off the pedal, the offense would just drain the clock (but not super effectively), we'd punt more than we would throw for the remainder of the game, and the defense would become the part of the team that 'played to win'.

Bill C talks about how there's three aspects to coaching a team: Acquiring Talent, Developing Talent, and Deploying Talent. Honestly, I think Fuente does the latter two pretty well; guys that transfer out of VT typically haven't performed at the same level since leaving, and guys that transfer into VT tend to out perform their previous stop (leading me to believe Fuente & co did a pretty good job of developing or deploying them). My biggest beef with Fuente is his ability to acquire talent.

Twitter me

I agree with all this

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Thanks. I can't remember if it was here, or a conversation elsewhere, but I've been saying for a while that I really hope we see the day where I am not worried that an in-game coaching mistake from Fuente may cost us a game with a huge impact on the season.

Another example, the Pitt game a few years ago where we made 4 straight stops from the 1. Incredible resilience, no doubt. But many don't recall that right before that we scored a touchdown and were going for 2, but had a penalty. Fuente decided to kick the extra point and put us up six rather than going for 2. I almost lost my mind in the stands and drew quite a few looks/comments from fans around us. Because XPs are virtually automatic in college football, that extra point did nothing for us. Thank goodness for the defense/Reggie Floyd, but we were a shoestring tackle away from another loss directly attributable to a Fuente in-game coaching mistake.

"That's it guys. Let's get out of here. That cold drink's waitin' on us, let's go." - Mike Young after win no. 300.

Except you are assuming that we make the 2pt conversion which is probably less than 10% from the 7 and we still need the stop to win the game in the likely event we don't get it.

And it is a passing down so a pick six is in the cards which would make it a 3 point game.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Actually, I'm not. The point is that the extra point did absolutely nothing for us. In other words, "a touchdown beats you anyway," as some of my old coaches would say. Had they scored that touchdown, we lose. It was a virtual certainty. College kickers make over 95% of extra points because it is still at the old distance. You go for 2 so that if they do score and kick the XP, you go to OT. With the XP, "a touchdown beats you anyway."

"That's it guys. Let's get out of here. That cold drink's waitin' on us, let's go." - Mike Young after win no. 300.

I think this is more than a bit of recency bias.

But when Frank got into a game that wasn't going his way he got a who farted look and had no answers.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

I would argue that 4 is a good example of learning. They didn't have the under center sneak in the playbook for ND, realized the short coming and added it in.

I can see that, and I too admire him for not being overly stubborn and correcting course. But it is sad that we didn't have that basic item in the playbook to begin with. I hate to go all "good ol' days," but most high schools (and even rec league teams) have a few minutes of QB/Center exchanges before and after practice. You see backup QBs taking snaps on the sidelines all the time. The QB sneak and "wedge" blocking are some of the most basic techniques in all of football. I can't believe we didn't have that in the system. That's why I say he was outsmarting himself by trying to go shotgun, misdirection, etc. Just line up, take the snap, and fall forward. TD.

"That's it guys. Let's get out of here. That cold drink's waitin' on us, let's go." - Mike Young after win no. 300.

I see a lot of college teams and some pro teams not go under center for 3rd or 4th and 1 to sneak it. If you are always in the gun, it telegraphs what you are going to do. Note it took two attempts to sneak it in against GT. If it had been 4th down it would have failed.

Nothing is an absolute certainty. And those teams are going against predicted outcomes. Funny enough, this article came out not long after that happened: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21158057/the-dying-art-qb-sneak.

"That's it guys. Let's get out of here. That cold drink's waitin' on us, let's go." - Mike Young after win no. 300.

I actually think Fuente is a good in game coach, and I think he made the right call in all of the games you mentioned. The only time I really disagreed with his in game management was against Kentucky, when I felt like he should've gone for it on 4th&3(?).

Twitter me

This is a great list but I don't think you and Fuente are using the term predicted outcome the same way. In fact, I would say the entire offense is built on defense not predicting the outcome. The predicted outcomes Fuente wants is in regards to the script of particular plays.

I once heard a coach state that a successful offense has to be willing to run on passing downs and pass on running downs.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Thanks. You are right about the definition of the terms. I was doing that a bit tongue in cheek to highlight him "outsmarting" himself. While I do think there is inconsistency in philosophy that is tough to square, it was an unnecessary distraction.

And I wholeheartedly agree on your second point. An OC must be willing to mix it up and adjust to tendencies. A good example would be the shift (not just at VT) to throwing on 1st down (incomplete), then running on 2nd and 10 to set up third and manageable. This was a popular approach, that is until defenses adjusted to stop the run in this situation based on tendencies. An ever-changing chess match, for sure, but some things are tried and true and don't require that level of thinking. That is my underlying point with Fuente and his game management. A balance of new and innovative vs. tried and true, if you will.

"That's it guys. Let's get out of here. That cold drink's waitin' on us, let's go." - Mike Young after win no. 300.

#2 still haunts my dreams to this day.

Also, last year against ND and Kentucky, we kicked field goals near the end up the game while up 3 already (with short 4th downs if I recall correctly)....so now we're ahead by 6 (and we know exactly how those games ended up)....I mean yea, that prevents them from getting a field goal to tie it up, but c'mon man!

I think something similar occurred in the UVA game as well, but what I mostly remember from that game was we went away from what would have worked against them...

Virginia Tech Class of 2013
Mining and Minerals Engineering

Sailing the Eastern Seas....on a ship filled with sand....

I was under the assumption that HH hasn't practiced enough/isn't in 'game shape' due to his health scare, and Fuente just didn't think he could play a full 4 quarters.

Twitter me

For me I'm not even convinced it's this deep, I think it's purely political that BB has played as much as he has despite not playing particularly well. You bring in a highly touted transfer prospect and then the guy doesn't play a lick sitting behind QP and Hooker. Not exactly a great look given how involved we've been in the transfer portal as of late

This sounds like nonsense to me. Tech has taken plenty of transfers that haven't played meaningful minutes. He clearly played him because he thought it gave Tech the best chance to win and we just don't have the data that informed that decision.

It's Time to go to Work

Does he go into detail about his lack of success recruiting and how stars actually do matter??🤔

I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction:
“I served in the United States Navy"

KCCO

VT doesn't have the bagmen to afford top players. That probably sounds like sour grapes, but that's the reality of the situation right now. Several of the top misses in recruiting the last couple of years have been because another school swooped in and bought recruits out from under us. You can believe me or not, it's your choice.

Agree. It's strange how this never get brought up. Are we all just pretending that paying players doesn't exist even though we've seen countless instances over the years in basketball and football?

Are we really going to be "that" fan base?

So I guess the answer to my question is Yes.

How much are we being outbid by? But we had the bagmen when Beamer was here? Did our bagmen just go bust when the market collapsed in 2008? Did they invest in P&G? Do VT bagmen not make as much at Clemson bagmen?

I'm not naïve enough to think that bagmen don't exist, but I also don't believe that kids are sold on VT, and then changing their minds last minute for a few hundred or a few grand. I also find it hard to blame our 60th ranking 2020 class on poor bagmen.

Twitter me

Are you knocking our Hardies coupons?

More than "a few grand," at least in the couple of cases I'm personally aware of. But like I said, you can choose to believe me or not. As far as most of you know I'm just a talking guitar on the internet

I'm interpreting 'more than a few grand' as 5-figures... I can't imagine spending $10k+ to land a 4-star recruit. But I suppose that's why I'm not a bagman and why VT isn't landing top 20 classes.

Twitter me

I read this post and the question popped in my head, "would a group of Clemson fans pony up $10+k if it meant getting Trevor Lawrence?" I think the answer is probably yes. A&M fans put up $75 million for Jimbo Fisher for some godforsaken reason.

When it comes to college football, certain people will do crazy things with their money.

I think there's a difference between TL, who was the third highest rated high school recruit of all time IIRC, and the random 4-star players (that only have a 50% success rate) that VT struggles to land.

Twitter me

That's true for sure. Based on my perception of fan bases, some do seem like they'd be more willing to put cash on the table (and in a bag) than others are. That's all I was speculating on.

Yes, he goes into very specific detail about how it's hurt the offense dramatically, which is why we aren't averaging the 35 points people on here thought we'd need to be competitive and instead are ONLY averaging 42.67. /s

Edit: Dax was also a 4 star guy while Farley was 3 stars. Stars don't always matter, and yes, I'd rather have higher stars than lower, but we're doing really freaking well on offense given 0 five star guys.

Yeah I feel for CJF here. He's just out of personnel on defense

This year, more than most, is going to highlight where our depth is really weak. The fact that practice time is down is just making things that much worse. That being said, Fuente may be frustrated now, but the experience all these freshmen are getting will help evaluate who are the keepers and who aren't. In addition, allowing all the seniors to come back one more year may help cover up his two rough recruiting classes in a row.

Re: BB being named 1b to Hooker 1a preseason, I think that needs to be seen through the lens of "Our starting QB might be medically disqualified before the season, and we don't want other teams to tee off on the backup guy." Fuente also talked up Willis a bit last year, and then it turned out he was the only option for a few weeks because of Hooker shoulder injury. Maybe at least consider the possibility that Fuente knows exactly who is more talented, but doesn't want to talk down the guy who has to start?

The big question is what now? Do the coaches have the ability to make the adjustments to prevent a total defensive meltdown? Can the players get past the UNC game and not let it beat them going forward? The BC game will be an interesting answer to these questions.

I think there are fundamental schematic issues that could be easily fixed. UNC was gonna score, but we should have been able to get a handful of stops throughout the game.

Is coronavirus over yet?

To be fair it was JHam's first time calling a P5 game. Give him a chance to learn.

burn it down. /s

"Take care of the little things and the big things will come."

I'm glad we have fans that care and want to win; but some folks are taking this season WAY too seriously. The depth isn't there to deal with the random removal of 15-20 players from rosters, sometimes on a one day notice; and that doesn't factor in absence from practices and conditioning.

What we are left with are essentially exhibitions. Ratcheting down on who should have done exactly what & when, is WAY overthinking, imo...frankly, pretty pointless.

I'm enjoying the fact that we've actually had football to watch and deeply appreciative that these guys are doing/risking way more than anyone should expect to try to generate income for the program so salaries can be paid and other sports can be played.

What we are left with are essentially exhibitions.

Insert Beamer out of conference games exhibition comment here.

You will see this game, this upset and this sign next on ESPN Sportscenter. Virginia Tech 31 Miami 7

One thing I can say is he mentioned a lot of the same problems we've all noticed (linebackers not tackling, depleted secondary, HH looking better than expected). So it's not like Fuente is clueless and/or living in a different reality from the rest of us. It would be interesting to see if any of these problems get patched during the season, I could see it going either way really.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Jet Sweep

We're seeing defensive issues across the CFB landscape, and at least some of it may be that even players who are not currently disqualified for Covid may have missed significant practice time during pre season. As much as we'd like VT to be plug and play, I think we're going to see some weird games while the players get back to actually practicing With the (mostly) full team

I would assume whole team practice (good vs good) is very limited. It has to impact defense more than offense.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Not to mention....New DC who is trying to install a new system with limited practice and down portions of the secondary and starting a walkon.

Then there is this article. Players playing out of position, not having bodies to practice, almost to a point to put players on the offensive side in on defense, etc.

But hey, we can't blame covid and the offense is to blame Fire Corn /s

I have not seen anything from Corny that gives me reason to defend him from the calls to fire him. And I am in the crowd who is just happy to have football games this season.

I'm in the heart of SEC country and I keep laughing when people seriously discuss playoffs. Playoffs?!?!

I think drawing any substantive conclusions about the defense from the first three games is pointless. If you think not having any real safeties doesn't impact, say, the D line, you live in a fantasy football world.

I went back and watched some highlights and it was striking to me that there were several plays where Matheny was one on one with a running back and didn't make the tackle. Scholarship safeties make this game look pretty different I think.

Safeties should not have to make most stops. When your tackles make no stops, it's bad run defense.

I'm not not saying the defense would have been amazing, clearly the front 7 left a lot to be desired. I just noticed that I'm at least a few moments, the safety had the chance to stop the run for fewer yards. If it's Deablo making that tackle instead of Matheny, then UNC has fewer huge plays. Does that mean we win? Probably not, but it just seemed like safeties being out did have a direct, potentially significant effect on the run defense.

The obvious ones that Matheny missed were on the outside where he was in position to make the play. You are correct that our DTs and LBs should be making tackles in the middle though.

Each of UNC's first three scoring drives were sustained affairs with multiple third-down conversions where we had d-backs out of position or looking tentative. So while the front-7 certainly underperformed, I don't think it's stretch to say that at least 2 of those 3 touchdown drives don't happen with more athleticism at safety/cornerback. Sometimes all it takes to prevent a touchdown is a 3rd down tackle early in the drive.

This week's SEC Shorts clip is hysterical but hits a little too close to home.

Oh my gracious, that short was nothing less than coffee-spitting and eye-wiping magnificent. Thank you for reminding me to check them out, I needed the laugh after Saturday's defensive nightmare.

VTCC '86 Delta Company, Hokie in Peru, Former Naval Aviator, Former FBISA, Forever married to my VT87 girl. Go VT!

Haven't read through all the comments, so may be repeating things others have said. Defensive issues feel like a perfect storm:

- Players out and not practicing
- Missing talented players on the field
- Players playing out of position
- Players that are on the field are possibly out of shape or just plain out of practice
- Not only about being in football shape physically, but mentally
- All of that on top of learning a new scheme
- No spring ball to install new scheme
- Limited practice and players practining to learn new scheme
- Plus it seems the DT's and maybe even the LB's were recruited for a different scheme and so maybe even in a non-Covid year, we would be seeing weaknesses at those positions because you have the wrong body type/athlete playing a position that doesn't quite fit the scheme

Feel bad for the players, and stinks that occurring in a year when the offense looks pretty darn good!

All the offense could come back, but Herbert may be gone to NFL next year and maybe another player or two could be gone to NFL as well.

Still, great to see the fight and am excited for the team. Just getting Deablo and Jenkins back will make things a lot better in my opinion, but still a lot of weaknesses and growth needed on defense.

If you are looking at guys going to the NFL I think Herbert, Darrisaw, and Hoffman are the guys I could see leaving on offense, Justus Reed on defense.

It's Time to go to Work