The offseason will get after ya so....
.Wednesday evening at Hotel Roanoke. HUGE crowd, a nearly full ballroom, I'd say 3-4x number of people who attended last year at Salem Civic Center. Also attending were Whit, Mike Burnop, Ron Crook, Derek Jones and Brian Crist. Mike Vick was scheduled but was called to NY to film a Fox Sports segment.
Spoke to Ron Crook- an awesome dude. Super down-to-earth and friendly. Pry was working the cocktail hour talking to everyone.
Some Pry comments:
- Says T Bo is a brilliant football mind and that they needed to have the QB coach and coordinator combined. Admitted last year it was not an efficient operation and that was clear to him as the season progressed
- MIsses the D game planning but he needs to focus on HC. Joked that he walks by the DC meeting room and its locked to keep him out.
- Said Mike Vick had a QB/receiver camp (I believe on campus) that drew top talent from around the country
- Continuing to focus on in-state recruiting, and noted that they will have 10 kids on officials this weekend including the number 1 recruit in the state from Salem (Chris Cole), and that they are going to Claytor Lake. Apparently, they do some stuff that the recruits love- Pry was fired up about it.
- They are hosting 42 teams for a 7 on 7 pass skel competition- again talked about getting people on campus in any way possible.
- Really excited about Tuten. Said he's made Thomas, Duke etc all better with his experience and leadership.
Anyhow, nothing too special but a pretty good time.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Awesome stuff! Thanks for attending and relating news to those of us that can't make it to these things.
By all accounts, Scot Loeffler is a brilliant football mind. He couldn't adequately impart that on the players, though, which is why I think he failed as OC.
I'm still concerned about Bowen's lack of experience. He might be a genius in the film room but what matters is the results on the field and we haven't seen that yet. Time will tell, but I'm not real jazzed about the fact he's so green as an OC
Adaptability. How do you respond when the defense smokes your perfect game plan before you even open the binder? Do you improvise, or do you run jet sweeps to the short side of the field two plays in a row then run a 50/50 fade down the sideline on 3rd & 9?
I prefer QB run on 3rd and long right into the center of the line.
Bowen's problem was/is the same as leofflers- execution. missed blocks, terrible execution in the red zone, turnovers, all boils down to struggling to move the ball. Get a good drive going- false start, holding, dropped pass, punt. We haven't had an OC that can actually prepare a game plan and prepare the kids to actually execute it well. Find something we can consistently block, read, catch the pass or make the run work. Who cares if the OC is a playbook genius. So is Nathaniel Hackett, but Russell Wilson couldn't execute it. That has been our issue. We simply can't execute consistently - especially in the red zone or obvious passing downs
Both guys also had a former walkon as their leading receiver in their first year. Willie Byrn in 2013 and Kaleb Smith last year. I'd love to have a few more guys like Willie on this team, but both coaches struggled from a talent standpoint early on.
Loeffler seemed more interested in being the smartest offensive mind in the room rather than simply attacking the other side's weaknesses with his side's strengths. I've always thought with the right program, he could be a legendary OC.
I have no idea yet what Bowen is all about - good or bad.
Yeah I want an OC that has no problem run the same play 30+ times a game if it works, it's annoying as possible but you know Paul Johnson did that if he could and you know we all hated him for it. I want to win, who cares if our offense is fancy or impressive, them consistently owning another team, even if it's through a single weakness is fine.
When this happens, it says a lot more about the opposing defense than the OC.
Agree, but so many people would screw that up because it's boring. They have a game plan and want to slow that off I want to win.
Or maybe they want to practice other plays against a live defense, or get other players snaps, etc.
I just think the notion that if a play works a few times in one game that you can call it 30+ times in that same game is unrealistic. If there is a huge difference in talent or the opposing defense is utterly unprepared, then sure.
I just can't think of a single game where I've said 'man, if we called play X 30 times we would've won, but we only did it 6 times so we lost'
yeah it's difficult to think of one specific game, yet look at (most) vent threads and you'll find a ton of comments about "X worked so well in the first half, why did we stop" -- because usually the defense adjusts to take it away and continuing to do that would be dumb.
Yet somehow I remember the Thursday Night game when Miami ran basically the same running play all night long until VT showed it could stop it. And VT never showed it could stop it.
Sometimes it's not necessarily a play - or even running or passing every play - but attacking a player(s) who have a demonstrable flaw. Particularly when you have a weapon that helps attack that weakness.
Or maybe it's something like a CB who cheats on bubble screens. You run a few bubble screens (much to the chagrin of the peanut gallery) to set-up a bigger play later on in the game.
My original point about Loeffler was it generally seemed - at least to my eyes - he didn't simplify the game plan to attack the other teams weaknesses with VT strengths (which were admittedly few at that time). He just tried to do what he wanted to do - regardless with whether it was going into the other sides strength or weakness.
This on the game side, and as for the practice side, if you watched the videos they put out at the time, he wasn't a good teacher of students. He was like one of those genius Calculus or Physics teachers who could probably hang with the best minds in the world, but couldn't break down the fundamentals to teach an average kid how to be average at the subject matter.
Saying cool motivational things like "5 star get after it effort, take it to the shade, 100% juice" is nice, but at some point all coaches have to TEACH. Teaching is a skill and if you can't do it, you're not much of a coach. I think Lefty's beautiful football mind is more suited to the NFL where they can have football geniuses on staff and then other guys to teach the concepts and fundamentals of the scheme.
TL:DR I was always impressed with Lefty's football mind but his auxiliary skill set didn't cut it in college football, including his inability/refusal to adapt to game day situations, but most of all his inability to teach the concepts to less gifted minds.
The only time I've seen VT keep running a successful play over and over again was against Pitt in Fuente's first season. They couldn't stop the back shoulder fade and Evans and Co kept going to it. Nardouche was livid that he had no answer.
Ole Pat was furious that game
You love to see it
Edit: I forgot about the Bud Foster bit at the end of that video. I miss him.
The Orange Bowl against Kansas comes to mind......
The 2006 and 2007 Bowl Games still upset me. Especially 2007; Mangino is a lousy person
Could be a matchup thing as well. Even if a defense knows what is coming, but the opposing OL is just dominating up front and opening up holes for the RB, I call the run all day and demoralize them.
Like I said:
It's rare that a DL gets whipped that badly, that frequently, unless they're undersized, unprepared, or hungover
Or was the LOLUva team of 1983 (where VT averaged 9 yards on 1st down) in the '83 squeaker 48-0 win.
Oh I agree you can't really ever run a play 30 times, it's more the mentality of don't go away from what works or what you know. The bowl game against Cincy a few years ago comes to mind, friend and I were discussing the 4th down go for it TD, or do you take 3, and then we lined up and were confused to see what looked like a new formation. We both asked why would you go for it with that play.
You'd never see that from Ricky Bustle, he'd set up plays and keep what worked on the back of his mind and then use it when he needed it. You would have never seen a play not ran before on a 4th quarter 4th and goal, he'd run something he tried and worked prior. he knew his bread and butter plays. Loeffler and Cornelson both liked to take deep shots at drive killing moments.
Not sure if the play in question, but coming out in a new formation, but running the same 'play' is an easy way to confuse the defense, or at least make them account for a new threat.
Idk, I just don't buy the notion that most OCs are frequently outsmarting themselves. At the end of the day, it's about running plays your guys are capable of running and adjusting to opposing defenses. I get that those two things are frequently at odds (especially against better defenses and better talent).
I'm not sure Cornelsen was capable of outsmarting anyone, including himself
The cornelian offense had fundamental issues (like running 'option' plays with a predetermined read). No amount of improved play calling could drastically improve that offense.
I am not saying we should have Ricky's offense or anything, he's just the ladt OC that seemingly took notes about the game, ram plays to setup other play and then actually ran the play that was set up. He called plays with a purpose and it hadn't felt like we've had that since. There are tons of OCs that do that, just not the ones at VT. Lincoln Rileys offenses always attack you in a way that is methodical. Lane Kiffin is a master at putting players in the right position and the right play that at Bama he'd call a TD just after the snap cause he knew that he'd gotten the defense where he wanted them. Those offenses have a flow that VT has not seen in 2 decades. There are a lot more OCs that do a great job than just two of the best I listed cause that really is unfair to compare what VT can afford and the tip top talent. I just haven't felt good about the play calling since Bustle, Stiney and Loefffler both knew the Xs and Os but both called so many bad plays at bad times like they never had a feel to the game. Cornelson well we don't need to beat that dead horse.
I completely agree with you on running the plays that you can execute. Pick on the weaker players on defense, and exploit their holes. Run the play in multiple sets. Joe Gibbs exploited this. He shuffled people all over the field, and then ran the same counter trey. Picking on the opponents weaker player(s) is the fundamental plan to score
I would much rather have an offense that can execute 10 plays out of multiple sets. I feel that many of tech's issues are execution, not the play calling .
This:
Is very different from this:
I agree that VT has not had a P5 quality OC in 20-some years. I agree that quality playcalling builds upon past plays/tendencies in order to surprise/mislead the opposing defense.
I don't agree that you can expect (much less want) your OC to 'run the same play 30+ times'. There are very, very few situations where this works.
Again, never as I clarified its the mentality that if a defense would let you run the same plays over again you would just take that and roll with it. I would never expect that to happen.
Kansas in the Orange Bowl. Feed the RBs.
I ran the same 4 plays all the time in Tecmo Super Bowl and was unstoppable. 500x SB champion
Wow, I didn't know David Wilson was in that game.
I thought it was little more like KJ
Could be either, but David Wilson would run 70 yards to gain 16
It was one of the most frustrating things about him. There are good times when refusal to just go down helped, but he also had a lot of -10+ yard plays.
That 2011 run against Clemson where he ran (what felt like) 30+ yards behind the LoS still makes me feel sick.
Or the run in the Sugar Bowl against Michigan that ran us right out of an easy field goal. Probably don't go to OT with those 3 points.
In Tecmo Bowl you could get close with Roger Craig too, I feel at the 2 yard line with no time left. But then again you just bomb it to Rice and have Ronnie intercept every pass
Thanks for sharing.
That's awesome
Seems like this was the camp
Edit: Attendee list
2024 Virginia Tech three-star quarterback commit Davi Belfort
2024 Georgia four-star wide receiver commit Ny Carr
2024 three-star wide receiver Peter Gonzalez
2024 Notre Dame four-star wide receiver commit Micah Gilbert
2024 four-star tight end Caleb Odom
2024 five-star wide receiver Cam Coleman
2024 four-star wide receiver Bredell Richardson
2024 four-star running back Tovani Mizell
2024 running back Jor'dyn Whitelaw
2025 wide receiver Messiah Delhomme
2025 four-star wide receiver Hardly Gilmore
2025 four-star wide receiver Michael Thomas
2026 quarterback Julian Lewis
2026 quarterback Dia Bell
2026 quarterback Dereon Coleman
2026 wide receiver Peyton Zachary
2027 quarterback Zac Katz
good on him for realizing it wasn't working instead of being too stubborn and leaning into it, but also .... as encouraging as it was to see the profile of hires in Rudolph + Glenn, the potential for "too many cooks in the kitchen" with the least experienced guy in Bowen as their leader was high from the get-go and called out by a lot of people. it's curious why that was the go-to coaching configuration from the start.
There are soo many questions surrounding the whole offensive coaching staff hiring business. None of it made sense
Other than Bowen's inexperience, what other questions are there?
Well, bringing in him Glenn and Rudolph raised lots of questions. Was it too many cooks in the kitchen? What would the offense look like since they all had different backgrounds? Without knowing what the offense was going to look like (would it be more power running or rpo?) what was the recruiting strategy going to be?
If you're bringing in a guy like Glenn who had been an oc before, why wouldn't just make him the oc and put Bowen on tes or something? It was all just kind of a jumbled mess at the time
Did it raise questions? I feel like the questions weren't raised until a few games in. I thought they were amazing hires when announced. French even pointed out that all 3 coaches (Bowen, Rudolph, Glenn) came from offenses that ran similar blocking schemes (even though the blocking scheme we ran for the first 3/4 of season was something that none of the three had ever run before).
Lack of playcalling experience at P5 level was called out as something to keep an eye on by at least one guy
https://www.thekeyplay.com/comment/1111809#comment-1111809
But yes at the time most of us were excited to see where the combination of the offensive staff would take us
Lol nice one. But yea, I had my skepticism around Bowen, but I thought the position coach hires were all incredible.
Yeah I mean I thought head coaches were supposed to respond to OC criticism by calling it ludicrous crap...
Its hard to fathom how bad Virginia Tech has been on offense for the better part of 25 years. Endemic. I made a comment once that Beamer should name Bud OC and I wasn't kidding. I bet you he would have figured out a way to put a good offense on the field.
Or, if not good, at least one that didn't suck so freaking badly.
I'm paraphrasing a quote someone had on the old Fire Bryan Stinespring website.
paging IllinoisHokie
another one whose presence i miss
Maybe Pry thought the older guys on offense could do for Bowen what Pry was doing with Marve on the defensive side.
It worked with the defense because Pry had a clear vision of what was going to be installed (a defense he's had years developing) and it was always a foregone conclusion that Pry would move on to solely HC duties when Marve was ready. The older guys on offense didn't have that as they were trying to install an offense that was a mish-mash of styles and establish an identity that they didn't have the bodies for.
TLDR: "Mentor the young guy until he's ready" might have made sense on paper. Worked on D, fell apart in execution on O.
One other aspect I would add to your TLDR is that for defense the mentor was higher-ranked than the mentee, whereas on O the mentors were mentoring someone higher ranked than they were.
It worked with the defense?
Our defense was not "let's seriously compete for the ACC" good last season, but it was "we shouldn't be nervous about going to a bowl game" good. Our defense had some lapses, sure, but did enough to win games against ODU, Miami, NC State, Georgia Tech, for sure. I can even see arguments for having done enough to win against Duke and maybe even WVU - (I know they collapsed in the 4th quarter, but we were only down by 6 going into the fourth quarter. Time of Possession in that game was almost 2:1 in favor of WVU.
At the end of the day, they weren't perfect, but they weren't the problem.
It feels like for a decade question has been, if the offense could move the ball consistent at all, could the defense stay fresh enough to dominate for 4 quarters.
Feels like that's been a question longer than a decade. Bryan Stinespring hasn't been the OC for like 11 or 12 years and that question lingered while he was here. That was a question that I heard a lot in college (06-10). Our defense was elite but our offense was pedestrian at best
Stiney offense could run the ball for 4 yards all day long, just could not find a way to pass it consistently. If the defense keep the score board low, Stiney could grind clock.
With Darren Evans, Ryan Williams and David Wilson it could, NOT with Michael Holmes or JC Coleman (when OL recruiting dropped off a cliff as well).
Huh? The defense was given late leads against ODU, NC St, and GTech - big leads against the latter two - and managed to give up enough points late to lose each of those games. And NCSt & GT were playing with inexperienced back-up QBs.
The defense may not have been as big of a mess as the offense in '22, but it was still a mess nonetheless.
I think that a lot of the issues with the defense was that while we may have a lead late in the game, since there was no depth behind the starters, we were in danger of giving that lead up. Which we did. We had a decent defense. It unfortunately was only the starting 11 that made up that defense.
depth was absolutely an issue. But, also, TOP was also a problem. Even with a deeper defense, the offense couldn't stay on the field so the defense was going to wear down regardless.
The defense by and large played pretty well when injuries and fatigue weren't factoring. Basically, the 1s were alright, once we got into the depth chart or the 1s were gassed, we suffered big time. Offense scored 13 pts in the GT game (0 in second half). We went up 21-3 on NCST in the 3q and then the offense had an additional 3 possessions and ran a combined 10 plays for 16 yards over <7 min. You're smart enough to know that it's too simplistic to just reduce it to offense/defense -- so much of one unit's performance influences the other
Also "it worked with the defense" i think was specifically talking about bedding in a new coordinator over the course of the season. Marve called the whole Liberty game and did a darn good job. That game FELT like a Lunch Pail Defense game.
Thank you. That is exactly what I meant.
Defense was top 40/50 by almost every major analytics service (SP+, FEI, etc). Offense was unanimously outside the top 100.
The '22 defense was an improvement over '21. The offense was an enormous step back by any objective measure (and I'm not saying that step back was/was not avoidable... just saying that it happened).
I'm not worried about the long term future of the defense - I'm pretty confident Pry/Marve can turn it around. Wayyy more unknowns about the offense.
They weren't flawless, but they did enough to win those games.
ODU - we allowed 20 points, 7 of which came from a special teams snafu. Is it really too much to ask the offense to put together 21 points against ODU?
NC State - Time of Possession was nearly 2:1. We went 1-11 on third downs. We managed 293 yards of total offense for the game, and gained
a total of 23 yards in the final 16 minutes of the game. Imagine how that game might've looked if we give the defense any semblance of a break throughout the game.
GT - the defense scored a TD to contribute to that big lead. So did the special teams.
The defense got us a pick 6 to put us by 11 with 20 minutes to play. They followed that with a 3 and out.
Our drives then went as follows:
(1) missed 40 yard FG to go up 14 with 14 minutes to play (defense forces a 4-out turnover on downs, giving our offense the ball in field goal range)
(2) fumble on the GT 10 yard line on first and goal with ten minutes to go (defense gives up a 90 yard drive)
(3) throw an interception that hit a receiver in the hands in what would've been field goal range. (Defense gives up a score)
(4) punt after gaining 4 yards (defense gets a three and out)
(5) fumble on the first play
That's 3 turnovers, a missed field goal, and a three and out on the final five drives for the offense, all in the final 20 minutes of play. We lost by one point.
I'm not saying the defense was perfect. I'm just saying they did enough that we would've won those games with anything more than an embarrassing offensive performance.
Exactly, if we have an elite defense like top 5 level then maybe we get to a bowl last year. Even then the ceiling is probably 6 wins. When that's true, the problem is not the defense.
In most of our losses there is nothing the defense could have done to alter the game's basic trajectory, let alone change the result
I really hope HCBP works out. He's absolutely the right cultural fit for VT and the NRV on the gridiron.