OK. Sucking absolutely sucks, I don't think anyone will argue with that here on TKP. However, I do think there were some positive things to take from the game today. I won't break those down here in hopes that we can create a thread to discuss those things as I think some positive vibes are always good. But I will say this...
I did take the time to listen to the post-game interviews with both Pry and Tony Elliot. I must say, if you listen to those brief interactions with reporters I think you'll see that we probably got the right guy for what VT needs right now. Again, I know it's difficult to watch the product, but we are seeing a team begin to take on the identity of their leader - a group that doesn't make excuses, that just plays... all the way to the final whistle, regardless of the score.
Comments
This was one of the more enjoyable games to watch this season. We are starting to see what the product can be, and that's good. That means weight room, recruiting, and natural time ij the system can start to fix our woes. Pitts running back really had two types of runs, 80 yards or -2 yards. So while there are things to fix, it's looking better and more competitive.
I was watching the game with two of my friends and this is kind of the weird thing I said to them. It was obviously painful watching the big runs, but I told them this performance overall was better than I expected. The fact that we were still very much in this game in the 4th quarter made for a more enjoyable viewing experience as you've said. I was expecting a slower death as the offense never really gave us a realistic shot. That wasn't the case tonight as the offense looked more competent than recent weeks.
The lack of depth on defense is more telling against teams that run the ball well. Unfortunately the only solution to the problem is recruiting and development. There is no quick fix.
Even going back to Bud we were never particularly good at tacking, and went for the big hit more often than not. So I'm not surprised that a breakdown in tackling yesterday caused our eventual loss. I'm just happy we were competitive both offensively and defensively and had player in position to make plays all over the field. But with the missed tackles, dropped passed, inconsistency in passing accuracy, and cuts to the wrong direction when we had the ball, there's only so much that scheme can do.
I am hopeful, however, that when recruiting turns around (and it will, people keep forgetting that Pry is a major reason why Penn St kicked our ass in recruiting) we have the right coaches and scheme to make it work. These growing pains now will pay off later, that's for absolute sure.
Maybe being the class of 2007 that's how you saw Bud's defenses, but we absolutely were good at tackling under Bud. I remember a lot of tackles where our guys wrapped them up rather than big hits. Some the kind where you grab them from the side, wrap em up, and throw them to the ground. Our guys always swarmed to the ball, and if the first guy didn't bring him down, he usually had him wrapped up and the guy who got there a fall second later would grab on also. We weren't just hard hitting, those were just the more spectacular plays.
I disagree with this. Bud's las few years, even when Beamer was still at the helm, Bud's defenses were tragically inept at tackling. I remember how frustrated everyone here was about it.
I dont think Brandon Flowers knows what wrapping up means, in context to football.
You were missing my point. My point was that Alum07 having been there when he was may not have seen the good tackling. I got to Tech in 92, and remember plenty of years with good tackling, just before recent years. And you're correct, the last few years under Bud, the defense wasn't as good. But it had been really good for a long time, and that's what I was referring to, not recent years.
Noted. I did miss your broader point then, and to that I definitely agree. Those early defenses that Bud ran, hell even the one's where he was the LB coach before he was the DC, were very physical and sound.
Swarming to the ball? Yes.
Wrapping up and tackling? Especially in the open field? Not so much
Again,I was referring to years before you got there. Not sure how you think Bud got top 10 defenses without being able to tackle well other than the hard hits. We absolutely tackled well, potentially just before you saw it.
Was there from 89 to 95. I can surely attest to Bud's dominating D. The only issues about those D's was the opposing team's O trying to figure out how to deal with it.
I remember opposing teams having close to 0 rushing yards going into halftime. It was glorious!
Ah the old days when there werent end zone seats so the wind could just sail through the stadium and VT could sell out the run and dare teams to throw in that wind.
Only worked that way for half of the game. They could throw in the quarters they weren't facing it. Hell, some games the other teams had close to zero for the whole game. The other point to non-zero rushing yards in the second half was that crushing opponents didn't matter, so we'd play backups in the second half and that's usually who the other teams were able to run against. And usually any positive yards were offset by how many sacks we got.
So, yeah, maybe the wind played into it some, but I doubt that much.
I dont know about the Beamer years but I know Claiborne used to dare teams to throw with those wind gusts ... okay I don't know, I trust my dad and grandfather.
That's also back when the MVs and the Corps sat right behind the visiting team's bench. Home field advantage, indeed.
Bold assertion about recruiting. In typical VT fashion we are a day late and a dollar short. Recruiting has entered a new era where I don't think coaches selling is going to matter like it did. The time to hire the CEO type and give a kid a happy meal with $1000 in it was like 10 years ago.
Even with all the mind numbing issues... we were still in a position to win during the 4th quarter.... have to admit that we are showing some progress
Some progress, some steps back in other areas. Can't pat ourselves on the back too much when you give up over 300 yds rushing to one player and special teams are dreadful.
I agree, but progress isn't always linear. The offense was much more functional in this game. The defense finally showed some of those run fit busts we knew the guys on this defense were capable of. A few them weren't even really fitting issues, but tackling issues, and that sometimes just comes down to having the right dudes. We don't have enough of them on defense to be consistently good. However, we have seen this defense show it can play well and more consistently against weaker offenses, which is something we struggled with the last two years in a major way.
I feel like Fuente/Whit said progress isn't linear right before 2018 when all of Beamer's top players had left. Agree but man that gives me shudders. I know this is a long rebuild, but sitting around looking for a flake of sugar in a bowl of salt week to week isn't doing it for me. I remember VT as a proud program. I remember Druck & Co winning the Sugar Bowl vs Texas as a small child, I remember watching the Orange Bowl the next year when we played Nebraska, I remember the Vick years and the natty game. I'm just not satisfied with what I see on the field. It actually annoyed me when at the WVU game the student section cheered harder for the basketball team getting their rings than they did the rest of the game, then promptly dipsetting at half. No disrespect to our basketball team, but I remember this as a football school. And we sure don't act like one anymore, in any way, from top to bottom. Do I think we are now trying? Yes, but I just don't know if we are going to get there.
Got bad news for you, this school has never been a football school top to bottom because fans didn't invest in the program, the AD didn't invest in the program and even our hall of fame coach looked to leave after taking this team to the NC game.
Can't argue with you there. The neglect/complacency going back to the Beamer years is astounding.
To be fair (rather, to be technically accurate), Weaver made Beamer & Co the third(?) highest paid after the UNC situation?
But, to your point, Weaver/Stegar tip-toed around the college football arms race for far too long, and it might be too late now.
Just because Fuente said something doesn't mean it isn't true.
I feel the same way.
I'll never stop being a Hokie fan. But for me, it's only fun if we win. And the older I get, the less I feel like investing in things that I don't have fun with. That might make me a bad fan to some people, but I don't care. Looking at a 16 point loss and going "yknow, we're actually getting better" is not fun.
I haven't caught a single game live this season. Perhaps I'll watch the highlights of this one, since reports are that we looked a bit better
I actually sat and watched the entire game for the first time this season. (Had other stuff going on, etc)
It helped having no expectations, but I enjoyed it except for the losing part.
Yes, there was frustration, head shaking moments but we were in it, despite ourselves.
Defense was gassed last third of game, IMO. Not an 'excuse' but its hard to do your job.
Offense was serviceable, had glimmers. I think Pry is going to will us to a power run game, or die trying. He has a vision for the team, just doesn't have all the right colors on his palette yet.
Special teams were BAD, except for a couple of plays.
But, I enjoyed it. We just have to keep improving, but there's glimpses. And I'll support the team, because as a whole, I think they're putting out effort.
Do you remember when Beamer took over?
No, a bit before my time. I know it was a total ground up build job. But my frustration is why we are having to go through this a second time as a program. From nothing to a solid program and now square one all over again. Much harder to build a program in today's college football than in the late 80s/early 90s. Just don't know if I see it happening again.
I was a student from 89-92 football seasons. So yeah, I've seen bad VT football up close. Those teams would have never let one RB run for 320 yards. no chance.
'73 (my Fr year) team would have; Wilbur Jackson had 138 yards on 5 carries my Fr year. They had like 700 yards on the ground.
The 25 should be something more special. Not just to the "best of the worst", but it should really go to the IMPACT special teams player. If Special Teams suck, then don't give out the 25 the next week.
Just my 0.02
I would support Prioleau getting it this week, but that's about it.
Technically, Pitts punter made the biggest play on special teams that impacted the game in our favor. Maybe call him up and give him the 25 jersey for the week?
Agreed, it was was originally intended to be a special teams award...we should get back to that. PJ Prioleau deserves it this week.
There aren't that many things I'm really interested in on field. Play hard and beat UVA mostly. But I do agree with most of TKP that should be some sort of visible on field improvement. I don't think that improvement will always be linear.
There were improvements and highlights on both sides of the ball. There were also a lot of letdowns and really really bad things that were not situations where the better more talented team was beating us, but us just making bad plays. However, overall we were pretty competitive today, and we have been pretty competitive during the first half this season. Those are positives in Year Zero, and hopefully we can build on that.
Hendon Hooker is playing so well and I am so proud of him. I hope the vols are smoking cigars Saturday.
I dream of a team like theirs and their quarterback was ours.
I have been asked to be an honorary Vol fan this year due to the Hooker connection.
And our previous regime chased him out of town
Good place to put my weekly Thank you Coach Clown King Fuente stats.
#3 in this weeks QBRs is Hendon Hooker
#126 (out of 129) is Braxton Burmeister
#88 is Grant Wells
Someday there will be an Aflac trivia question - Which FBS coach had a Heisman winning QB who left after entering the portal twice? and Va Tech fans will score 100%.
Now that my weekly therapy is done, I was encouraged by the game. Reminded me of the year my wife made me coach my oldest in basketball in the midst of years of coaching the youngest. It was your usual bad bears story, starting with the scores being whatever the other team wanted them to be. Last game of the regular season, down one, we took the last shot which hung on the rim forever and then.................................
didn't go. Winless for the whole season. Won three postseason tournament games in a row and then in the championship ran into a team with way more talent than ours. The players, bless their hearts, followed my game plan to the letter and we held their star to a season low while his teammates had their best game of the year, but I had one of the most satisfying losses ever watching that team compete, only losing by a half dozen points.
I see all the similarities between that team and the current Hokies. It was always one big step forward with lots of small steps backwards each game all season long. I would be boiling inside and upset with a dozen things each game but always tried to put a positive spin on "learning and improving" from each game which I assume is what Pry is going through.
So yes, I see the silver linings and Pry's season isn't going to be nearly as painful as mine was. So I am behind him completely as long as the signs of progress continue to show up because I've been there, done that.
Now the downside which is I don't see much upside with Wells. Third year as a starter and 88 out of 129. It is such a key position and I just can't see enough silver lining there. Whatever do we do there? Tahj, Dylan Witke, portal, coach up Wells, I dunno, anyone got some hopeful answers to that one?
Better receivers would help some, especially ones that can catch the catchable balls. Better OL would help some. And more coaching/teaching would help some. Enough? Obviously way better than keeping BB.
ESPN articles today. Points out Tenn has scored 30 points in eight straight games. Then talking about Hooker for Heisman. He's thrown 41 TD passes since he was installed as started game-3 2021. They kinda mention that's 20 more than VT as a team since then. Woof.
So FuCorn get an A+ for recruiting him, but F----- for failure to develop him.
Pretty much. I'm just the jealous ex who saw what he had, didn't want it to leave and then laments what could have been.
Don't get me wrong. I'm happy for HH. Think he got a raw deal here and deserves his success. Plus, there no way in Satan's nipples he would have that success here. Fu wasn't going to develop him...and if did the least, wouldn't have gotten fired and we would still have CornFu express running things.
Worse than that. Fuente said he was turnover prone and not ready for prime time. Not only did he did not develop him, he publicly trashed him, which no doubt led to his departure
Like our hoops teams in the greenberg era in terms of missing the ncaa tourney, you almost have to try to be as bad on offense as VT has been. It's been bad for a long time
Virginia Tech has had little consistency at QB for the last decade. Wells still has two years of eligibility left if he wants them. It's likely that of he stays, he'll get better in that time. Is it guaranteed? No. But look at Hendon. He is in his sixth year and has benefitted from that extra time. Wells, though not as talented, will benefit from extra time just as much.
QB is not the worst of our problems at the moment.
I think Wells is a talented dude. Hooker was good for us, but I never would have pegged him for a first-round pick (which he will be). Wells will get better as the team gets better. There are only a handful of dudes that make the team better., especially at the college level.
They chased dragon out of town too
And he went on to rush for 1,000 yards at Colorado
After rushing 1000 for us.
But, he fumbled once. That is -1000 yards. /s
He was one of many players that fans got really creative in the way they tried to downplay him after he left to defend Fuente and his staff. They did the same for Burmeister > Hooker. Both of which are insane narratives imo.
I think when Trevon left, the trend hadn't started yet. Little did we know that it was a canary in the coal mine. Hooker's story is wild... He was supposed to ride the bench for Huepel too until Mixon got injured. This is the first year in his 4-5 year career that he has actually won a starting job before the start of the season.
That trend had not reached critical mass as it did after the post-2018 exodus with all the articles and transfers, but I distinctly remember people downplaying our need for him/his success at Colorado consistently anytime he was brought up on TKP.
Regardless of what was happening in practice, we had way too much in-game evidence that Hooker was the superior QB. People treated the 2020 UVA performance by Burmeister (212 pa yds, 1 TD, 36 ru yds) like it was proof of concept that he was clearly better than Hooker. Embarrassing stuff from the fanbase. We had a game that same season against UNC where we were awful with Burmeister and almost made a huge comeback as soon as we put Hooker in.
I was expecting a beat down. I thought our offense would look the worst it has all season and it ended up looking our best. We were able to run the ball and we completed some shot down the field.
We just need to put all phases together. Defense looks great and the offense doesn't, offense looks good and then the defense or special teams doesn't.
Thomas helped a lot, he got extra yards out of almost every run. I sound like a broken record, but he and King are the best two players on offense.
Add Caleb Smith. The kid has been balling out...considering how bad our O has looked.
Oh yeah he is by far #3, this feels like 2017 with Cam as our only proven reciever. He is the WR corp.
Yep. I am so sick of seeing Holston on the field. He's the past not the future. Go with Thomas and King. If you need to give them a breather, play Duke or another kid.
Sucks to lose, but finally saw some improvement
Only saw early part of the game, but with Thomas back at RB and rotating with King, looks like we could have the start of a decent run game. Still need to clean up the penalties, special teams and not turn the ball over. Discipline and fundamentals with a little run game would be a good foundation to shift our course.
Coming into the game, I was expecting it to be over in the second quarter and the final score to be something like 45-10. So the offense was a really pleasant surprise, the defense was in-line with expectations and only the kicking was bad. Kickers have been good, so guessing that it was just a fluke bad day, but we will see.
Would have never guessed we would have had a real shot in the 4th quarter, but we did. Seeing some progress in what will be a tough season.
We have a coach who sees and acknowledges the specific issues as well as the good points. I have no idea if Pry will be the long term coach we need, but I feel better at least knowing he sees what needs to be fixed including maturation of the coaches as a unit. I also feel good that even if recruiting doesn't improve to the level we need and Pry isn't here in 4-5 years, Pry is improving the high school relationships for the next guy.
But, I also have some confidence that even at our current talent level, if we have players experienced in Pry's staff's coaching style for a couple years, we can have a competent top 25-ish team. Add in a really good QB and running back, you have a top 20 or better team. Get a couple play makers on D- a beast on the line and an NFL to be quality corner and you're flirting with the top-15. As bad as it seems we are, how many teams with less resources and less history of success have we seen become good teams?
LOL Elliott. Figuring out they don't have a winning culture. Players without internal motivation looking for others to do it for them. He has identified the problem with the university he chose. Now he just has to figure out how to separate the team culture from the school culture - sound like any previous first year UVA coaches?
There's no question Elliot is in, completely, over his head at LOLUVA. This isn't the first of his post-game press conferences I've listened to.
Does he not know the name of his QB? He kept referring to him as 5. Seems like you might want to learn your players names at some point, especially if they're your stressing qb.
Former Clemson coordinators are having a rough time this season. Oklahoma just had their worst shutout loss of all time and gave up the most points to Texas in 118 years. At least Elliot has the not much talent excuse. Not sure what Venables is doing.
Oklahoma lost their starting QB last week and he's still out. The defense is the very concerning part. It needs a serious rebuild.
Their defense needed a rebuild for like 10 years now
I never felt like Venables was that great when he was at Oklahoma before on those defenses. He had help from big game Bob and his brother Mike. The offense seemed to bail them out more times than not.
Oklahoma is going to the SEC soon also...I can't wait to see that D trying to handle SEC running backs
Enjoying the even-handed discussion here. I agree, there were some positives to take away yesterday.
They're playing hard.
I just hate it for them that it hasn't been paying off more.
Pry's biggest challenge will be getting them to keep giving their all even when it isn't paying off. If they keep working hard the wins will come. Pry earns his paycheck by keeping the players bought in through the lean times.
Sure. I can see the effort. I also see or best OL Dzsani blocking air on the 2 pt. attempt. I see Moore not being able to punt a football. I see two back breaking consecutive procedure penalties on 4th and 1. And I see a horribly disciplined run defense that couldn't seal the edge ONCE in the second half. I see Jaeden McDonald covering air and letting the TE just go past him, when he knew on a broken play he couldn't rely on the safety help. Lose games? fine. I was expecting that. I was not expecting their kid to look like a combination of Jim Brown and John Riggins in their primes or our special teams to be so awful. It's worse than I thought.
You're doing the "looking for the positives" wrong. This was supposed to be a positive rather than a vent thread.
hard=/=well
Yes but if they can't play well, I will take playing hard
They're giving me hope that things might be able to be turned around in a reasonable time frame.
Ah yes, hope. That thing that causes more alcohol consumption. I expected a beat down yesterday and then the guys gave me hope and I got invested.
What could have been if not for untimely penalties, missed tackles, and headscratching kicking game.
Definitely feel we played better than expected and there is visible progress. Suddenly seems like five of our last six games are winnable.
Pitt won a game they were supposed to win, but not as easily as expected?
Pry needs an intermediate goal. Tackling Pitt running backs is a few years away obviously. We can't compete physically with Pitt at this point in the program. So Pry's first goal should be to elevate VT's program to JMU's level. Yes I said it. JMU is so much better it's laughable. They don't give up 8.5 YPC to running backs. They get clean punts off, they make 35 yard FG's, they don't get delay of game penalties after timeouts. They play clean football, they win. VT is a long way away from being able to tackle ACC running backs. So start smaller. Get the program competitive with a JMU or ODU before trying to compete with the Pitts of the world, because that's not happening. Our last 2 trips to Heinz field, we had no chance to compete with Pitt- none. I saw WVU - who won 4 games last year- compete physically with Pitt right down to the last minute of the game. WVU is not alabama. We need to be real about this. YOu can say that 3 star kid that nobody had heard of just had a career day, but that is bullshit. This program is not competitive with Pitt at this stage. We just aren't. So try to get to JMU's level.
And yet we were right there with Pitt until the 4th quarter. So, we're not as good as them except when we are? Add some depth on D and cut a few penalties and this game is ours. Oh, and make a field goal.
You watched a different game than I did my man.
We went up on them, we went down but fought our way back, and it was within 2 points in the 4th quarter until they blew it open. We missed a FG that would have had us up, and fumbled the ball. We were there, not sure why you think we weren't, you know, until those last 2 TDs in the 4th.
Each time we got to within 8, they immediately scored- most of the time wide open runs/chunk plays. We competed with them in the first half. Football at this level is 4 quarters and their RB running around untouched most of the second half does not a competitive game make, IMHO. The kid averaged 8.5 YPC and scored 6 TDs. no sugar coating that.
Does that somehow change my point that it was 29-31 in the 4th quarter?
29-31 with VT with the ball at midfield no less...
Except that without the fumble that game is as close maybe even closer than their game with WVU
Their running back scored 6 TDs. 6. So to compete with that, we need 6 TDs ourselves. We hadn't had 6 TDs as a team the prior 2 games. We could play should have would have all day, but even if Smith doesn't fumble- a great physical play by the Pitt LB, BTW- we need to tackle that kid that looked like John Riggins in 1981. Bottom line. We couldn't tackle him the second half. Anything else wouldn't have mattered. Even if we make that last FG, he busted an untouched 80 yard run on the next play. That's not competitive.
Not to make excuses, and I know it's a different division, but JMU has a championship culture, VT doesn't even have a winning culture. Outside of 2016, it's been a very long time since we've done really well. It's going to take time to get that mentality back to Blacksburg.
As far as the culture Pry inherited, I allude to the fact that under Fuente, the players voted not to play in a bowl game even though we had the longest active bowl streak in all of college football. I know bowls don't mean what they use to but that told me all I needed to know about the culture under Fuente.
It wasn't just voting not to play, which to some extent I understand because apparently they'd had to and would continue having to isolate from their families throughout the holidays to be able to play. It was that some of them wanted to lose intentionally so they wouldn't HAVE to play in a bowl. You can still win and vote to opt out, so wanting to lose intentionally is some pretty freaking bad culture.
Hindsight... yes. But Fu literally couldn't handle a talented but vocal/challenging kid in Trevon Hill- even with Foster on the staff and familiar with him. He also wasn't equipped to deal with the Mook Reynolds situation- which polarized the locker room, and he never got it back. Those 2 incidents eroded the culture in that locker room. The gas on the fire was benching Hendon. There was no going back after that. Fu won't make those mistakes if he gets another chance.
It's not hindsight. Some of those guys who WANTED to lose may very well still be in the locker room. If there is ever a situation where kids want to lose, they just aren't going to fight as hard to win. That's the point behind hating to lose - how hard you will fight to win because you hate losing so much.
Right no we have guys who are used to Fuente and Corny's play calling that always seemed to let close games slip away, so are conditioned to losing to some degree. We also have those guys who aren't going to fight as hard because they don't mind losing. Pry can't chase all of them away most likely if he needs a roster to be able to play, but it's still culture that needs fixing or replacing at some point.
Agreed. It would be nice to be ranked again. *sigh*
Man you were doing so well to start the season
I expected and am prepared for 3-4 wins. 100%. I'm not angry or frustrated with losses, I know this will take time, I have been openly critical of the roster for a few years. I'm not an idiot- we haven't signed many big time kids recently- I get it, I'm not blind. What I was frustrated about Saturday was my team, my school putting ANOTHER negative banner/record book day to some JAG from Pitt. 2 years ago it was the kid that couldn't get on the field at Maryland looking like Jerry Rice and breaking single game records of Fitz and antonio bryant, and now this kid smashing things Dorsett never did. You can lose games as you are rebuilding. You can also be ANOTHER punch line- which frustrates me. I'll be at the game on Saturday. My hope is that Van Dyke doesn't break every single game passing record put up by Jim Kelly, Bernie Kosar, Ken Dorsey, etc. Maybe we can do that. We aren't beating Miami, but does one of their players also have to have a career day?
I get your frustration. It sucks that at least once per season, for about the last decade (starting with 2013 UMD), some random player has a career day against VT, or some school sets an offensive record against us, or something like that.
It's just another reminder that VT is a mediocre football program at the moment.
They played hard and actually had moments of competence on offense.
"Moments" of competence? Our "moments" added to 29 points and 400 yards of offense against a pretty good team. If this is "moments," what are you looking for, 80 points and 800 yards?
It may not have been pretty, but we put some offense out there.
22 offensive points, and I remember people skewering Beamer for saying "we had over 400 yards" at a loss at Clemson. 400 is not a lot anymore in modern college football. The offense looked better- yes. Lofton played better, Smith was very good, Malachi is a legit back and good change of pace for King. The offense also sputtered horribly in Pitt territory in the first half. Turn 2 of those possesions into touchdowns, and it's a different deal perhaps.
400 may not be a lot for most teams, but it is for this one. Prior to this game, we only got above 300 yards twice, ODU and Wofford. So maybe it's not "good" but it's BETTER, and THAT is the point.
And yes, not 29 points of offense, but scoring on a blocked punt is STILL a GOOD moment, on top of the others, all of which added up to 29 points.
If you're so hell bent on criticizing, create a vent thread. Coming to the silver lining thread and responding to what people are writing as the positives is 100% counter to what this thread is supposed to be.
I was looking for their best receiver to not fumble on a 3rd down conversion down 2. I'd like for the QB they brought in to average more than 5.9 yards/attempt. I'd like for them to not cost themselves a shot at a 4th and 1 and then a field goal with dumb penalties.
It was better. After two games of total incompetence, there were signs of life. There's still work to be done. After going up 16-7 their next 6 drives went punt/punt/INT/punt/punt/punt, at which point they were down 31-16. 4 of those 6 drives were 3 and out.
I'll wait for French to confirm, but this had to be the best OL play we have had all year. Malachi is good but it could not all be because of him. I imagine he is not quite in "game shape" yet.
I know there were a couple goof ups, but as a whole it seemed better
I was at the game so I haven't had much time to read the TKP's thoughts on this, but here is what I'll say.
The good includes Malachi Thomas stabilizing the offense. Very easy to see how he swings the ODU game and could have been helpful against WVU. The offensive line had moments but certainly is on the upswing compared to the beginning of the season. Kaleb Smith is a very good football player, but he can't carry the passing game alone. I hope Daequan Wright can be the next man up in that regard.
As for the mixed things... Wells stepped up in some regards, but outside of designed runs, I don't remember him stepping up in the pocket. He's got to learn to climb the pocket if we're ever going to pass to the middle of the field. I hate that fumble for Kaleb Smith, but it looked like a perfectly timed hit from my point of view. The early defense played well, but the lack of depth showed up late. I really liked Delane's game.
The bad was everything else... The special teams were just entirely off. No idea what that punting unit is up to but it definitely cost us a ton. Field goal kicks were coming off low (might have been wind-related, because I know
Heinz FieldAcrisure is tough to kick in but it was pretty mild for Pittsburgh weather. The run fits and the pursuit angles got progressively worse as the game went on until Abanikanda was just going for 20 a touch. Penalties still taking potential points off the board for us...Honestly, all of that is in some ways okay (what is a step below tolerable? this shouldn't be tolerated or accepted, but understood? I can't quite place the feeling). We knew this was going to be a rough season and a rebuild. But the part that concerns me the most was the kids on the sideline. They looked focused and never gave up, but not entirely engaged emotionally. It just bums me out for them, to be honest. I want to see a team full of confidence, that celebrates and shows out for their teammates. Let's drop the business-like culture that Fuente wanted and just have some fun and play for your brother.
I believe it's called a "predictable outcome." /ducks
Agree with your assessment of the good, bad and in-between. To me, Smith is the only reliable receiver, the others generally are inconsistent dropping too many catchable balls. Wright has looked good in his limited opportunities; though haven't really noticed his blocking skills, good or bad. Seems to being used as a WR more than TE. Punting unit looked lost the entire game like they were looking over the shoulder for some reason. Completely out of sync. Snaps weren't crisp, punter looks scared. Can't describe it any better. We either tackled their RB at or behind the line, or he was running free in the secondary untouched. That's my simple view from the couch other than ACC Network is pathetic.
I think what you're getting is the difference between the state of the 'program' and the 'team' - the 'team' has to play the cards they currently have in their hand (eg; within the talent/scheme fit we have). The expectations for the 'program' is a little more aspiration (for lack of a better term).
Some of what you saw on the sidelines may be psychological. Under Fuente, if I remember correctly, ever close game like this we ultimately lost. Pry said he has to build in the culture of hating to lose (Shoresy anybody?), but I'm afraid, despite even if they hate losing, maybe they almost expect it? This one is tough, but I think if we start building more positive momentum and winning some of these close games, we may see some of that excitement.
It could also be fatigue. Considering our lack of depth, they may just be honestly too freaking exhausted for a lot of enthusiasm, and I've definitely been there.
Pry has hit the nail on the head with his "complementary football is the key to winning"- He's 100% correct. Look at UNC. Their defense sucks- sucks- awful. So they are 1-4 right? umm nope- they also have an elite QB and offense, so they can score when needed. They aren't a one sided team. If they had a "decent" defense, they would be a playoff contender. VT has not played complementary football consistently in years. You can count on one hand when the offense, defense, and special teams played well in the same game against a good team. To pry's point- if we can play a good defensive game (ODU) a good offensive game (Pitt) and clean special teams in the same game, we have a shot. That's his theory and it makes perfect sense. The issue this season is margin of error- we have none. A 5 yard penalty kills a drive because our offense is not great for example. We will get there.
Andy Bitter made a simple chart in his Pitt breakdown. Basically, in any game this season where one unit has been anything less than passable, we lose. (And this is slightly revisionist, as the difference between passable and bad can be reasoned away if you win, but I think overall it speaks well to how we've played this season.)
Part of the complementary football thing is the consistency aspect. Defense and special teams got two stops in a row inside the 10 to start the game, and we managed 6 points. Pitt is not a good team when they are forced to throw the ball, but we didn't do enough to build and keep our lead into the second half to force them to abandon the run. The difference between a record-setting defensive breakdown and a potential victory could have been going up 20-7 instead of 16-7 early in the second.
*quick edit, for what it's worth I don't think Abanikanda is just another guy. Outside of WVU where the initial starter got hurt he's been fantastic. His one bad game was Georgia Tech where Slovis had 40+ attempts, and Izzy only got 10 carries. Why he wasn't the starter is beyond me, but Narduzzi is gonna Narduzzi...
I was just responding to why there may not have been a lot of enthusiasm amongst the players on the sideline, so... not sure how this ties into that?
I think you're reading into a bit too much. Focused and not giving up is wonderful, and an improvement from years past. I don't know how we can complain about that.
Abanikanda, hats off to him and his performance. Sucks it was against us, but you don't just do that either. He deserves the credit, as much as I hate Pitt.
This is yet another game where our recruiting misses hurt us. We had guys in position, but couldn't make the play cause they were going against better talent. I mentioned in the recruiting thread, we don't talk about the 3⭐ misses as much as the high profile misses. Those high end 3⭐ players are littered on that Pitt squad.
Pry's focus is on that type of player with this recruiting class. They are the culture players, the ones the 4⭐ players feed off of to win games. The coachable kids who are hungry, and demand success cause they didn't have the same recruiting resume as the 5⭐ starter.
This team's success is highly volatile. Improvement is not linear, but that run defense and punt team performance is a difficult pill to swallow when those were the best units heading into the game and each clearly had their worst performance of the year. And the run defense was really good the first two series--almost got tackled Abanikanda for a safety with three tackles for a loss to begin the game. But, that run defense quickly deteriorated and thus overshadowed and thwarted the VT offense's best performance of the year.
Some major positives:
I don't think a bowl game is a possibility, but I think VT will have a chance to look very capable by the end of the season and maybe just in time for Liberty and UVA. *Fingers crossed*
I almost feel like Moore was in his head after getting knocked down twice on his punts. I don't have much explanation otherwise to why he was averaging 30 yards a punt all game
I wasn't able to watch the game, so was following gamecast and noticed the short punts over and over. What was that about!? He got knocked down? Can you elaborate? Usually getting knocked down results in a running into the punter penalty.
A couple of punts were blocked horribly, on the blocked punt Delulius completely whiffs on his block...honestly it was pathetic. Overall I'm disappointed in our special teams as a whole, Will Ross is the only exception.
Yah he got a running into the kicker call against him on one of his first punts and the very next punt got run into again but the guy tipped the ball so no penalty. Granted special teams looked awful and he was punting with a guy in his lap
GT hasn't been good, though won two straight. UVA is bad, Duke lost to GT... we could make a run, it would be an impressive coming together of the team and staff to do so, but its not out of the realm of possibilities
Yea, I think this team is capable of winning 4 of their last 4 games, but I don't think they'll be consistent enough to do that and probably only go 3-1 in or 2-2 in their last 4.
The way we have played this year, you can't complain about losing any game the rest of the way. At this point, the loss is the expected result, and penciling any game as a win is just setting yourself up for frustration and anger.
I did notice GT putting a damper on juggernuaught/playoff bound Duke on Saturday. Interesting.
If this team can swing one of our next two, we might have a pretty good shot at making a bowl game. That's a big if.
I don't know if this team can win four in a row against any string of teams, but if we manage to steal one here, you never know.
Totally agree. I think this is a best-case scenario. If they can spring the upset against Miami at home, it would do wonders for their confidence and maybe give them enough of a push to find 3 more wins. I thought 4-8 or 5-7 was the realistic pick with my head, but my heart believed we'd find a couple of miracles and get to 6-6. Maybe I'm still filled with the hope of watching some flashes of competency on offense Saturday, but 6-6 is still possible with the remaining schedule.
Silver lining...saw a bit of what Pry wants to do long term and the team actually made a number of good plays against a decent opponent; but...
I do see some improvement. I think this team would have beat ODU.
A majority of the time we beat ODU. The Hokies beat themselves. I still look at on the lousy PI call inside the 10. If we don't have that, then we don't attempt the FG and give up a TD. That's a 14 point swing. Thomas and King could probably both have run for 100.
It's frustrating when Offense is having its best day, but the Defense and Special teams are having a down day. This team isn't great in any single phase of the game, so we will need to win in at least two phase of the game get a W. Unfortunately, we didn't do that against Pitt.
Need to see penalties get cleaned up. It's not just the amount or yards, but the timing - How about no penalties on 3rd or 4th down. I don't care how often they happen otherwise, but not on key downs.
Great having Thomas back, but it sucks that TyJuan Garbutt was out. Gotta wonder how different this game is if Garbutt plays? This is what happens when depth is an issue and the roster is unbalanced.
Overall, we saw life from the offense, and we got evidence that Thomas is probably the real deal. It's encouraging. IF we can stay healthy, and put it all together (meaning that the offense and defense both play well in the same game), we could upset Miami or NC st, which would be exciting.
The inconsistency is maddening, but understanding. It seems like this season, we can be good at the one area the head coach decides to focus on in a given week. That is probably the nature of having a new, mostly "first time in role" coaching staff. And that is why I will give them this year to get the PROGRAM dialed in a bit more. I would expect to see more consistency next year. If we don't, then I will start to worry.
Penalties are a legit concern. That's coaching, and that's not something you can blame Fu for. Well coached teams don't rack up a bunch of dead ball penalties. That's not being organized, prepared and ready for situations. That's not Fu's fault. We were one of the least penalized ACC teams under him.
I don't know how true this is... Some of the best teams of all time were heavily penalized, but to your point, they were great despite the penalties, obviously, not because of it.
My guess is that players don't know the playbook, or the snap the count, or they are second guessing assignments/responsibilities, etc
In general, well coached teams- Bama, the patriots, the gibbs redskins, parcells, etc- not 6 false starts a game. You get my point. Well coached teams don't hurt themselves with false starts and delay of games consistently.
I wonder if the first season/2 of the new coach at those places had a higher incidence rate of those kinds of procedural penalties before dropping down to the "well-coached" baseline? I don't think I have time to look at it, but my guess is there is a "burn-in" period that reflects the instability of learning a new gameday pattern, new playbook, new communication styles, etc.
It would be really interesting to look at procedure penalties over the coaching tenure of different coaches.
Also not trying to excuse the penalties, they need to get fixed. I'm just curious if we are seeing the "fixing" in action or if Pry is actually worse than other coaches at this.
You are probably right in terms of learning a new system, but in general great coaches don't have sloppy/highly penalized teams- college or pro. You only have so many hours in the day, and the coaches that emphasize the little details, and prepare their teams will have fewer penalties in the long run. Empirical yes, but I'd be willing to bet the numbers bear this out.
I thought we had a season a while back where we had a boatload of penalties. My Google-fu led me to this site:
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/penalties-per-game
It doesn't really separate out the types of penalties, but I did some quick searching to see where we ranked since 2015 (last Beamer year through Fuente into Pry). This site only counts games involving two FBS teams, so any of our FCS games won't be counted.
Year - # - Rank
2015 - 7.1 - 101
2016 - 5.2 - 31
2017 - 4.8 - 22
2018 - 6.1 - 70
2019 - 5.2 - 31
2020 - 5.3 - 38
2021 - 5.5 - 43
2022 - 9.0 - 127
I used to love hating on Pitt, mu, uva but my disinterest is now so complete I don't even have that to look forward to.
I think a lot of the mistakes are guys trying too hard. They forget fundamentals and are playing with too much emotion. They need to settle down and start playing with confidence.
That seems to be what Pry is trying to coach them to do which is why I'm not losing faith in Pry at this time. He's coaching them to play their assignments, trust their teammates to play theirs and stay focused on fundamentals- pad height, tackling form, etc. If the players will believe in that approach and play that way for four quarters, they're going to start winning some games.
Apparently, there was a shake up of offensive staff in the booth. Might be a reason we saw some improvement on that front.
Y'all got any of those sauces / deets?
Pretty sure the broadcast said Glenn joined Bowen in the booth.
Yep, I heard this on the broadcast too.
Pry confirmed it in his press conference. The plan moving forward is to have Glenn in the booth, who has a lot more experience calling plays than Bowen. I'm wondering if there isn't a co-OC sort of thing by next year.
Or this is on the job training/mentorship for Bowen. I mean there's a reason behind having a passing game coordinator and running game coordinator. It was to hedge against Bowen's inexperience, even if he has a lot of good instincts and will eventually make a good OC.
My guess is Glenn will be in the booth as long as needed, then be on the field again (since I thought that had a purpose as well in terms of being able to talk to the QBs on the field).
I don't think this is true - these titles are pretty common in college football now. When Elliott/Scott were coordinators at Clemson, one was the run game coordinator and the other was the pass game coordinator. Pretty Sure Rudolph was also the run game coordinator at Wiscy before leaving. Michigan State also does this, a bunch of other schools do too.
Bowen was given the OC role because he understand what system Pry wants to run on that side of the ball. Because he understand the system, he should be calling the plays. Glenn is there to provide (heavy) input into how passing players are structured/executed. Same with Rudolph on running plays.
As I noted below - seems like Glenn has spent his whole career in the booth and prefers to be there.
Great points, and for whatever reason and regardless of what they do long-term, as someone else pointed out - it's good they're making adjustments to find what works best. It's refreshing from the "let's just do things the same way - we know it will work" approach we've seen recently.
I had brought up a while ago that bowen didnt seem to have his plays meshed with who could execute them. It seemed like the. staff didnt know who could perform a particular play. The newness of staff/players/ system did seem to be disconnected.
Glad to see offensive improvement.
For the experts on this board, is there anything about either the actuals plays called or the play calling sequences that would indicate Glenn had a heavier influence this past week than in others? It would be easy to assume he was involved in the change in offensive productivity, but I would love to know if something in the strategy was different. Was the run/pass mix different? Higher play action/ RPO percentage? Those would seem like Glenn hallmarks, right?
"Trust me, bro"
Pry talked about it in Tech Talk Live this past week (I think it was TTL, might've been a presser though). Glen (QB coach) has spent his entire career in the booth. Bowen also prefers being up there if he's calling plays.
Initially, Pry didn't like the idea of having both the QB coach and the OC in booth, but they considered shaking it up before the Pitt game. They took the idea to Wells to see if he'd be okay with it; he apparently has spent most of his career with his QB coach in the booth, so he was okay with it. They also moved a GA who was previously in the booth with Bowen down to the field.
This is the stuff that a young coaching staff just has to figure out.
And the fact they are willing to look for and make adjustments is a BIG thing.
It does go against the "Current failures are all a result of Fuente, it's not the coaches' faults, we just don't have the guys" argument
I think there's a reasonable midpoint between "these coaches ain't it" and "Pry is handcuffed by the roster, our ceiling is 2 wins"
The coaches are going to make mistakes while learning on the job. Because the roster is lacking talent and/or depth, the impact of every mistake is going to be much greater.
Your point about talent magnifying mistakes of the coaching staff is spot on, not just for our staff, but for staffs in general.
In my head, you've got two things contributing to winning games: talent and coaching. In any given game, each team has a relative level of talent and a relative level of coaching acumen.
My theory is that when you have a talent advantage, you can actually get out-coached and still win. If you're talent deficient, you can actually out-coach the other team and still lose. If you and the other team are equally talented, that's when the game really comes down to in-game coaching.
Talent deficiencies don't erase coaching errors, but they don't hide them either. Talent surpluses can cover a lot of poor game-management decisions.
The roster is Fuente's- full stop. Nobody that played for Beamer or Pry prior to this season is on the team. Only the true freshman- mostly recruited by the prior staff, BTW- are "Pry's", and very few of them have played- and one of the best players on the team looks like its going to be Daquan Wright- a true fresh. So If there are guys that can't play or are struggling at this level, that absolutely is on Fu for 99% of it. These are his guys.
Yes it was the TTL before Pitt. One thing I really liked that Pry discussed is that he wants ever single person to be continuously evaluated for needed changes whether it's GAs, analysts, or coaches.
For the change: as they brought Brad Glenn up they brought the GA down to the field.
Here is an interesting quote from Pry that you can interpret as you want:
"Brad Glenn has been in the box his whole career as a play caller"
what I'm curious about, and what I think marks a great coach, is if he will continue to adjust even after finding what seems to work best for a given team. It's encouraging that they are making adjustments now and trying different things to find out what works best for them. What I don't want, is a coaching staff that finds what they think works best and then stop there and never change again because "we've tried it all before and this is what works best". Coaching a football team with different players every year is dynamic and that requires dynamic thinking and adjustments. What works well for this group of players may not be best for the next group. I hope that these coaches figure out what works best right now AND continue searching for ways to improve as time goes on.
Pry has two qualities that probably suggests that he'll continue to adjust:
(1) he's really good at issue spotting; he seems to be able to identify problems
(2) he's always upbeat about making corrections
In his pressers, he talks about a problem and then is upbeat about the ability to fix them. It was weird, yet really refreshing, to hear him this week talk about all the issues with defense but yet be upbeat about the defense and team as a whole. He is super analytical, yet always jovial.
It's hard to tell if Pry can be a successful HC, but he has certain qualities that you hope he succeeds because it seems like the right formula for sustained success. At a minimum, he's really good at selling himself.
In today's climate in CFB, Pry will be more successful if he raises the standard and makes necessary changes to address it. If special teams are mediocre, get a new ST coach in here. If the TE's can't block, hire someone to teach them to block, etc etc. The most successful college coaches have impeccable standards and they make changes when that standard is not met.
That may be true, but I wouldn't want him to go firing coaches this year. I think people underestimate how much impact there is when a ton of players leave a program. I assume coaching changes - for Freshmen, it's probably more high level changes, and as the guys get older, it's more refinement and fine-tuning. Those fine tuning things probably also takes less of a coaches time, whereas major changes for younger/rawer/inexperienced guys takes a lot more time.
So having your a lot most experienced guys leave doesn't just mean lost production, it means the coaches can only fix so many things given the time they have, and if those things are those big things that need a lot of one-on-one time with a specific player, there's less time for them to spend with other players.
And I imagine this is even more true if you need guys to switch positions, ESPECIALLY if it's switching because you don't have anybody to fill the position (rather than switching them as a Freshman because you think their skills will be better suited to a different position down the road, but you have more experienced guys already there so that kid can grow and develop into the new role).
In addition, from older press meetings, sounded like Pry was hoping for a fair amount of attrition for one reason or another (lack of effort being a big one). I don't know how many guys are on the team that fit that category, so how much time do you spend coaching a more talented guy who doesn't give much effort on the field vs. a younger guy with lots of drive but needs more coaching to be good?
As a coach, I'd want to spend the time on the younger guy with drive, but that means he probably isn't starting over the other guy. If you don't coach the low effort guy, he isn't going to get better, but is it worth the time and energy to try to make him better if he still isn't going to give you much effort on the field? I have a sneaking suspicion there may be some of this going on with this roster as well.
Regardless, my point is that there's probably a lot more going on behind the scenes that us fans aren't aware of, and I doubt Pry would bring up some of this stuff (especially if it's about specific players). It may not feel like it, but feels like we made some big strides on offense just this last week. I really want to see what the coaches can put together by the end of the season and going into next season now that they know what they actually have with this roster and can recruit based on what they need (including through the portal).
When Buzz Williams got here, he asked Whit- do you want to run a big boy college hoops program or not? When Whit said yes, Buzz told him- get used to roster turnover, coaching turnover, playing a different game in recruiting, etc. Same applies here. If VT wants to swim in the big pond, a "great" defense and shit offense won't cut it. Mediocre coaches won't cut it, mediocre recruiters won't cut it. Raise the standard, and hold underperformers accountable. That's what Buzz did- and he had arguably a tougher rebuild.
I didn't say anything about keeping mediocre coaches. What I said was that I think there's so much going on behind the scenes this year it's probably much more difficult to tell if they're mediocre or not. Or it may seem like it to us, but Pry knows that some of them are having to deal with extra shit that makes it harder to show out on the field results.
And I think there's a lot of that behind the scenes stuff that makes some stuff seem like bad coaching to us, but there's a lot more to the story. That's my gut feel. So us calling for the heads of coaches this year seems premature (in my book), unless it becomes clear through the season that a certain position group has gotten worse (not game to game mind you, but over time) not due to injury from a starter.
Maybe you aren't calling for anyone's head right now, but it seems like some people are, and I just think people lose sight of how much of a shitshow this year was going to be, how much talent we lost due to draft entries and transfers, and that culture where who knows how many guys wanted to lose, and from what Pry said, just didn't seem to have a good work ethic. That's a lot of shit to get through, and people act like coaching started on day one, and I think the coaches had to figure out some stuff about the roster, especially on offense before the actual coaching could even begin.
All that to say, again, I think it would be very difficult to tell this year if there's really a mediocre coach. And even so, I would guess Pry would be more aware of it than we would, because he has a better idea of what's going on in practice, and maybe we as fans aren't seeing the on field performance we'd like, but he knows what that position coach is going through and maybe that position coach has a lot of guys with crap work ethics, so they're not taking the coaching, so we would try to get different players in the portal that would take the coaching, for example.
Silver lining: At least we're ranked this week.
Oh, wait...
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-ranking...