"They ran a QB sweep we had not seen on tape, and just had more blockers than we had defenders." Wow. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. So once we get to the game, if we see something new, we just grin and bear it? We don't adjust? Yikes
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I knew they had like 14 offensive linemen on the field!
I noticed the same thing last night. That QB sweep they were running over and over was outnumbering the defenders with blockers. No way that should happen with no adjustments
Our defensive system is designed to work by making a team one dimensional. GT is a team that thrives on being one dimensional. We didn't take anything away from them.
The basic VT defensive philosophy is to stop the run, force the pass and pressure the QB into making mistakes. GT can't be pressured into throwing, they'll run on 3rd and 14 and if they don't get it on 3rd and 14 they'll run on 4th and short.
Basically we can't do anything about a one dimensional team. We are designed to disrupt two dimensional teams. Check out our performance against Ok. St. Basically a one dimensional passing team. Our scheme needs to take something away from the opposing offense for us to be successful.
Our defense is designed to penetrate and make negative plays. Regardless of dimensions, we couldn't do that at all
All defenses are designed to tackle and we couldn't do that at all.
We took away their passing game!
Thank god for that. /s
They did have only one incompletion, so I'd say their passing game was effective.
You mean efficient?
I seem to recall 4 plays where they pretty clearly intended to pass. (I'm not sure the box score is correct on that 0-1 stat. I thought they threw it twice, but I could be wrong.) Preventing them from even finding someone to try and throw to (recall how wide open ND's recievers on the deep ball all night) is pretty effective. That was one of the few positive takeaways I had from the game. I was fully expecting to see their passing stats look like 2-3 for 120 yds and 2 TDs. Unfortunately, we didn't manage to tackle the QB when tucked the ball and decided to run.
Agreed. They dropped back to pass 4 times on third and long.. We had the receivers covered and pressure on the quarterback each time.
1 and 2: QB ran past our defenders twice, once with a targeting penalty at the end of the play.
3: QB fell while throwing the ball
4: Ashby sacked QB for an 5 yard loss leading to the punt that VT successfully caught.
Both of the drives where we missed tackles on the quarterback on third and long turned into touchdowns. If we make those two tackles and catch the muffed punt, this game would have gone very differently.
Against Georgia Tech the outside pitch is basically a pass for them and we didn't do anything to make them run that and that's where they turn the ball over typically. Bud was clueless
Perhaps we should strive to make them dimensionless...
There have been no adjustments on defense in any game this year. Even the announcers were saying VT needed to bring corners and safeties up to shut down the run. Sell out to run and force them to pass. Did not happen.
There have been no changes and no adjustments on defense at all this year. I think that quietly reflects Bud's lack of confidence in his squad and their inability to make changes. They cannot even play well in the basic game plan.
No adjustments...have you been on the sideline or in the locker room at half?
Any sausces on this claim?
I'm sure if you call or email Bud he'd love to take your suggestions.
I have seen this claim before and it has been refuted before. Basically a man/zone adjustment is not always noticeable to the commentators. There are obvious adjustments like cheating your DB's and more subtle ones.
I think Ladler's targeting ejection effectively "iced the defense".
VT's defense is way too thin this year.
Not to be rude, but this is a terribly uninformed or uneducated statement.
One of the keys of Bud's defense is they adjust on almost every play.
I'd try laughing.
Crying over a football team of 18-22 year olds who you have no tangible personal investment in will just cause your body to release chemicals that will make you looker older than you really are, and cause you to gain that unwanted belly fat.
It can also result in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.
Should I.. should I consult my physician?
Don't try laughing if you are allergic to laughing.
This guy pays attention. He's a keeper.
Absolutely, if you get an erection that lasts over four hours.
That's only when VT is winning, though.
I haven't had four hours of that since the Florida State game.
Dude, with all due respect, is it really a doctor that is your first phone call in that particular situation...? A doctor, not the wife or the girlfriend...? 😅😅😅
I think the assumption is that the girlfriend was there for the first 10-30 minutes...
Might call sooner if your doctor is Elizabeth Grey...
Dr. Grey is well qualified...
I tell myself this before every game, yet every game I find myself losing my mind (and my voice) over this team. It's like a chore; I don't want to do it and I wish I could just put it off, but I do it anyway because I know I should. Trying to do better and losses like this actually make it easier.
No tangible personal investment? LOL. good one. My Hokie Club donations and seat fees disagree.
Oh boy.
Must. Resist. Going. Down. That. Road.
So you are forced to donate to get tickets, what argument does anyone else have, just don't attend? That doesn't sound like a donation to me, it sounds like buying tickets.
After the seating changed, this argument went out the window. After the tax rules changed, it is absolutely just buying tickets, a donation especially to a state institution would have some form of tax benefit associated with it. It is now just investing in the program, period. If you want to feel good that it is a donation, then go ahead and feel that way, but the entire structure is now set up opposite to that.
It bothers me that the Hokie Club tells me that Hokie Club dues are about supporting VT Athletics, not $$s for tickets. The recompense from VT is strictly limited to football and basketball tickets for my $$s.
There is ZERO effort by the Hokie Club to reward individuals who actually show up and support the teams (even the free to view teams). There is no reason not to reward Hokie Club points for actually showing up to basketball games (especially in 2013-2014), lacrosse, volleyball, wrestling, soccer, etc. They scan tickets, it would be easy to scan a Hokie Club card.
That would be great. It would certainly raise attendance of those events as well.
Don't you get points for buying season tickets? At least to football and basketball, where the tickets cost something.
Yes but plenty of people buy basketball tickets and don't show up. I think the end of the football season will be the same.
It is a bad look on TV to have empty seats but it is even worse for the athletes to look up into empty seats. I think the fact that I go to Hokie sports should improve my seats selection in relation to others who donate a comparable amount but do not attend events.
I see what you're saying, but another perspective is that if you're getting a premium seat selection, you're already getting a pretty nice benefit. You get to be at the game, and the overall cost of VT athletics is subsidized by those other contributors, as well as taxpayers who are indirectly supporting facilities.
The current system seems reasonably fair with points given for a variety of types of support, one of which is donating money, and another is loyalty in purchasing season tickets directly from the university.
What if they also gave discounts on concessions for Hokie Club members? I'm not sure if they already do that or not. I realize that's different from what you're proposing, but it's another angle.
I agree that the boosters from across the state/country that donate & purchase tickets are vital to VT. The immediate university community is not large enough to support VT Athletics on its own.
My main contention is that the Hokie Club tells me this is not just $$s for tickets when their actions ONLY reward $$s for tickets.
I understand that I am fortunate to be able to donate to the Hokie Club, VT Academics, etc & by living in Blacksburg I get to attend a lot of events.
This is just looking for improvements from my perspective but understand that others have a different perspective.
Go Hokies
It's all good, and your point is well-taken.
Thanks for supporting the team in a way I can't: going to the games. I'm dependent on tv coverage and streaming options, which are sometimes pretty marginal. I'm with you in spirit.
Yeah, I got an email this morning from Tech asking for more money. Not great timing.
I mean, from a different perspective why enjoy football? The lose of joy is just as real as joy itself.
No tangible personal investment? Perhaps. But no one wants to get humiliated publicly. And they did.
You've seen my picture?
[The above was intended to be posted in response to Leonard's comment above - "Crying over a football team of 18-22 year olds who you have no tangible personal investment in will just cause your body to release chemicals that will make you looker older than you really are, and cause you to gain that unwanted belly fat." For some reason, it kept posting way later in the thread.
You've seen my picture?So THAT's how it happened!
The problem with this is that the play in reference is a PeeWee football play. I see it all the time on the JV football field. We adjust from series to series based on how the blocking is working itself out. The kids don't always execute, but we try to adjust.
I just didn't see a lot of major adjustments last night (there were some tweaks).
I saw some adjustments but it didn't matter last night. The second the ball was snapped, all of our O-Line was blasted back 3-5 yards and their lead blockers bulldozed any of our guys trying to jump into the gaps. It was just like Bud said, they got manhandled.
Anyone that knows football picked it up in the second series. They ran a QB ISO lead/counter based on what they felt like doing for a changeup. All they did was double the weak side DE and ISO that hole. Their WRs (LOL- loose term) just cracked back on our OLB leaving a CB or Dax to try to tackle their QB- who had some speed. It was basic football. And we couldn't stop it.
I told my fiance that it looked like when I used to try to get through my Madden season quick with the Falcons (who were all 7'0", 365 lbs. and 99 in every statistical category) and would just run counters every play. Literally every play. There was no way I'd get less than 6 yards a carry. Gah Tech was my 2003 Falcons team and Virginia Tech was the computer with the stats turned all the way down last night.
That doesn't sound fun at all.
Someone never read Breaking Madden then.
I have not, but browsing the site, I do find this gif hilarious
All glory to BEEFTANK (all caps, please).
Yes! I had Warrick Dunn beefed up to about that size.
I miss when you could jack up the stats of players in video games to completely unrealistic levels. Man I miss the 90's.
Man I miss NCAA Football. It was how I could cope with my annually smashed Hokie hopes each year.
this makes me cry. but you are 100% right. I think its for coaches who cant coach. they just put their best athlete back there and say run right run left. and at that age if he is the most athletic on the field that team wins. that looked like the case last night too.
screw this season, I'm gonna watch Amazon Prime and Netflix
hot take: Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey are innocent!
Kathleen Zellner is a boss. She scares me.
I can't see any conceivable way that Brendan Dassey isn't innocent. Steven Avery is at least a reasonable suspect for a few reasons.
Agreed on both parts. Though I think there is some planted evidence and/or it was half ass work by the original prosecution and defense, I can see how some people think Avery is guilty, but I really don't think he is.
Now Brendan... that's a different story. Even without knowing, you can clearly see this kid has a low IQ and low social skills. The "confession" was coerced IMO as he was just saying what he thought the cops wanted him to say. The kid had no clue of the severity of his words.
I agree!
But even if they weren't innocent the legal system did very little to convince me that justice had been served. Something I am shocked wasn't harped on more was how the public defender basically sent Dassey up the creek. It was his job to provide him with a competent defense not feed him to the wolves (no offense to any LEOs out there but I advise anyone under scrutiny to not look at you as a friend).
Dassey's interrogation was gut wrenching to watch. I am incredibly disappointed in the 7th Circuit Court for their decision AND the Supreme Court for not hearing the case. There is a guy sitting in prison for the rest of his life based on a coerced confession. It's not like Steven Avery corroborated his confession in an attempt to take the blame off himself. There was no physical evidence connecting Dassey to the crime. It's a total fiasco. As for some of the lawyers and judges... Well... Let's say there may be a quality problem in Wisconsin. If you go to either the University of Wisconsin Law School or Marquette University Law Schoo you are not required to pass the Wisconsin Bar Exam to practice law. Scary.
I was impressed with Laura Nirider but I don't think she hammered home what an IQ of 80 means for a 16 year old. The 7th Circuit Could Justices did not do the math in their heads. Basically and IQ of 80 for a 16 year old means they have the mental capacity of someone with an average IQ that is 80% of their age. I think if she said, "Would this be acceptable to do to a 13 year old" she may have made the connection in the Judge's heads. I don't know. Just a thought. Sometimes you really have to spell it out even when your audience is intelligent.
I could go on forever but I won't.
At the end of the day for Brendan and Steven, they MAY be guilty, but is there enough to find reasonable doubt that they did it? Absolutely.
I think a lot of people forget its not guilty or innocent. Its either guilty or reasonable doubt not to find them guilty.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where we no longer are innocent until proven guilty, its the exact opposite IMO.
Maybe we spend the next 3 weeks on UVA in hopes of leaving this season on a high note... /s
If GT did what they did to us last night, I'm terrified of what AJ Dillon might do to us vs. BC.
...TERRIFIED
Fun fact: even if we lose to BC next week, we'll still control our own destiny for winning the Coastal.
The ACC Coastal, solidarity in mediocrity.
Mediocrity might be a bit strong.
I was being generous.
The last three weeks of the season is going to be a 3 way don't-shit-your-pants competition between us, UVA, and Miami.
And Pitt. Don't forget about Pitt.
You're right. Wouldn't be a shit related competition without Pitt.
Truth be told I forgot they only have one conference loss.
Fuck. Pitt.
To be fair, we've done pretty well against the run when facing non triple-option teams. We have given up big runs here and there though
I find this hard to believe. Zero tape on the QB sweep? Yea right...
Why wasn't there any adjustments? 4 down lineman all game long and 1-2 of them were a yard off the LOS. The other 7 being 5-10 yards away from line of scrimmage.... ZERO Adjustments.... so ridiculous. They were ripping 5+ yards almost every play. Why they didn't stack the line more, try to get more push and/or force them to throw the ball is beyond me.
The sideline reporter, quoting Paul Johnson, said something that corroborates this at half time.
kinda seemed like they took the Power G play that Notre Dame ran for that 90 yard TD and replicated it but with an extra blocker by using the QB as the ball carrier.
Foster's D is a 1-gap, attack the gap defense. A weakness is when gaps are created during the play, like with a pulling linemen and leading FB.. it can result in the defenders getting walled off or not being able to get into position fast enough to attack the new gaps.
yea, it also seemed that VT ran a rather vanilla D too. Typically, Bud brings in a new wrinkle against GT, but from my neophyte point of view, it looked like 4-3 with a safety back with hardly any movement on the D-line. Not sure why, maybe the inexperience on the Ends, Backers and DBs, but it seemed like Bud just wanted them to man up and go for it.
Not easy to "man up" when our D-line is outnumbered 7-to-1 even before accounting for the lead blocker(s).
This is exactly why I suspect Foster "didn't make any adjustments and stack the box." If we had everyone in the box it could have been even worse as our defenders screened one another and had to sort through a ton of traffic to find the ball carrier. I get that last night was excruciating to watch and fans wanted to try anything else to stop the bleeding but we've seriously struggled not to give up big plays all year. I almost guarantee this is the first game all season we haven't given up a 20+ yard play and if we had someone who could penetrate and create a negative play, we would have have been able to stop some drives.
So I looked back at every game for 20+ yard plays.
GT - 0
UNC - 7
ND - 5
Duke - 3
ODU - 13 (wow)
W&M - 2
FSU - 5
I know we got destroyed but if you look at the play-by-play, we actually had them in either a 3rd and long or 4th down situation on 5 of the 7 drives that were meaningful. As ugly as the game was, we were one down from getting off the field more often than not. I didn't think I could take anything positive from the game but after looking at that, I honestly feel like one or two playmakers on defense could have had a huge effect on the game.
We were a turf monster away from one, but that's still impressive given everything else that went wrong. Seems like the staff made a bet that they'd beat themselves before beating us consistently and lost. GT all but removing the pitch from their offense and our lack of adjustments to compensate for that had a lot to do with it.
Essentially I agree with this take but I would add that I think it's extremely unlikely that taking a more risky approach would have yielded different results. I do see why fans are upset that we didn't try it at some point though. My response would be to point to the edit I made to my last post that we actually had them in either a 3rd and long or 4th down situation on 5 of the 7 drives that were meaningful. We had chances to get off the field and blew it by not making a play, muffing punt, and getting called for penalties.
Good points, but how are other teams beating them? With a Freshman QB why not force them to run it outside (more pitches) and increase the chances for a turnover?
I believe this would play more to our strength because we have a smaller more athletic defense instead of the mauling we saw on Thurs.
I haven't watched a single GT game this year and as much as I love going down the rabbit hole I don't plan on watching how each opponent played them. Based purely on the play-by-play my speculation for each game is as follows:
I think PJ outsmarted himself against Duke by attempting too many passes and then they continually turned the ball over in the 2nd half. They scored on every possession against Louisville and only punted on the final possession against Bowling Green so those defenses were actually even worse than ours. Clemson has 4 defensive lineman who are going to get drafted in the 1st or 2nd rounds. Pitt seems to have had an excellent game plan without elite talent so if I was to watch a game to try to find answers, that would be the one. GT inexplicably attempted 18 passes against USF even though they averaged 7.4 yards per rush (they only averaged 6.0 against us) so it seems like PJ completely outsmarted himself in that game as well.
Interesting point. Hell, on their first drive we had them in 3rd and long and 3 guys missed tackles on the QB. Can't really blame foster for that - by all accounts his strategy should have forced a punt on the first drive. Then they did force a punt on the 3rd drive (it was just the most disastrous sequence imaginable after we got the 3rd down stop)
So really they were a whisper away from forcing punts on 2 of the first 3 drives. Things didn't get out of hand until the muffed punt after which it seems the whole team just crumbled. Still sucks, but i really feel like it wasn't a total defensive no-show now that I've thought about it. Not until the 2nd half anyway
I think we need to hire a tackling coach. I know it's a fundamental that a lot of coaching staffs take for granted, thinking that the players already know this (or should) based on their prior playing experience, but obviously we need to teach the refresher courses to our guys on the fine art of sure tackling, especially in light of the recent rules changes. Where's Cody Grimm? I thought we had him on staff recently, and he'd be a great coach to teach tackling to these guys.
I think we need to hire a tackling coach.
Only if he shows up with a boxing glove on a stick.
Is there a defensive equivalent to that?
The guy that rolls the tackling donut?
I actually really like those things. We use them here at the high school level on our tackling circuit.
I just got the league coordinator for our youth football team to buy one of these this season. It really helps teach how to tackle a moving target.
If that makes us not miss a clear tackle all season, I'll pitch in to buy a few dozen of those.
I'd pitch in for a baker's dozen even
There was more to it than this.
On the next 4 series the defense kept playing badly, just like before the muffed punt.
But the offense did the following on the next 4 3rd downs:
1: Willis found the open receiver and attempted to throw it to him but it went through Turner's hands.
2: Willis found the open receiver and attempted to throw it to him but he overthrew the receiver
3: Didn't convert 3rd and 2 run attempt ( because Willis dropped the snap and then couldn't turn the corner). (Edited)
4: Willis found the open receiver and attempted to throw it to him but offensive pass interference
Each of these mistakes resulted in a 3 and out. And by that point the game really was over.
Don't forget the third and short where Willis dropped the snap and couldn't turn the corner, leading to a 3 & out
Thanks, I went back and changed that. Also note that we could have gone for it on 4th after any of these mistakes, but the last one was a 4th and 25 after 2 penalties.
Our defensive inexperience was obviously the more glaring problem. But, the mistakes on these 4 plays where are caused by Virginia Tech inexperience at the offensive skill positions. And these four mistakes:
1: turned a shootout into a blowout
2: Didn't give our defense time to regroup and find a way to stop getting their butts kicked
Bud Foster said basically the same thing in the postgame interviews
This. I was somewhat aggravated that he talked about it so casually. I thought he might be a little upset.
By the end of the game we all had it on tape.
Ouch. There's no way to sugar coat this. Not a good look for Bud, no matter how young the defense is.
I don't think our defense this year was suited to learning how to defend this offense this year. I think we gave up this game to invest in training the defense to be successful in the rest of our games because that's just where we are right now.
I have no more concerns about this and I'm putting it to bed. Not that I won't bitch about it again in the near future but I'm not measuring our team by this game by any stretch.
Except time of possession which we really need to improve on.
I second this opinion
"Let's go 0-1 this week" -Fuente? Yeah, I don't buy that. Reminds me of last year when the excuse for our bad offense was "Oh we're just keeping it vanilla to hide our offense for the big games".
Well, not exactly, but I see your point. I'm look at it as a question of how we spend our limited practice time knowing that we are not in form yet as a defense.
I see HOAT's point.
The Triple Offense is it's own beast. If I'm a coach choosing what to spend limited time on, I'm spending time on what the team is going to get the most of.
This is a team that needs the basics more than accommodating GT.
I still think we'll watch this team improve.
This is exactly what I mean. Can I hire you to translate from Horse to Hokie?
That might have explained why Bud and CPJ were a bit more congenial than I'm used to seeing during the postgame handshakes.
After seeing that I imagined that conversation went like this:
Bud: I knew you were going to get us this year but I'll get you again next year.
CPJ: Yeah I see what you have right now and it's trending upwards but I definitely wasn't stressed about this game.
Or maybe...
CPJ: 49 points without a single catch or big play? You gotta try harder next time.
Bud: lol I let you do that
The way this board can go from "put Bud in the hall of fame" to "is bud out of his prime" to "build bud a statue too" and back to "I coach peewee football and I could have done better than Bud on Thursday" is unreal. The kid is saying they ran a play with a blocking scheme they hadn't seen before. CPJ will run the same play out of 5 different formations with 5 different motions. There's going to be things they haven't seen on film.
We were outschemed and out played. But the part that bothers me the most is that we rolled over. And it's not the first time.
Who rolled over and what makes you think that? Yes the defense didn't get any stops but that was consistent through the entire game. Rivers was injured in the first quarter and didn't return, Hewitt got injured in the 2nd, Ladler was ejected in the 3rd, and Ashby was injured in the 4th. The defense is disturbingly thin even with the starters and the attrition piled up as the game went on. I don't think the players rolled over though as GT didn't have a single play over 16 yards, which shows the guys continued to compete instead of giving up on plays.
I know some people think Fuente rolled over by punting instead of going for it on 4th down. I can see that perspective and probably would have gone for it myself, but I'm not aware of the psyche of the team and why he might have made that decision.
Needed the offense to score more points and use more clock to keep the defense off the field. GT had TOP of 42 minutes! That would tire out any defense in any league.