Bud Foster just put the program on his back and got us into a Bowl

[lucustookis]

Thanks again Bud. The offensive staff and culture, to include Coach Frank Beamer, reared it's ugly head again regarding offensive strategy and did everything in its power to NOT WIN the game. Bud Foster once again, put the program on his back and saved our Bowl Eligibility chances with us needing 1 out of 2.

Tonight, you saw what VT football has been in a nutshell since the departure of Ricky Bustle and the hiring of Stinespring with Lefty-Stiney following the last few years. We get into games like this all of the time, and on average, we can win 3 out of 5 games like this if we have a top 10 defense. The offense usually plays decent enough to win 1 of the 5 games giving us 4 of 5 wins. But....when you have a D like this year that can not do what it did against GT consistently and simply when the game for us, you get 6 and 6, 7-5, 8-4 like seasons.

What the Defense did tonight was equal to scoring 55 points. Imagine an offensive game in which we pull it out and win 55-43. That's what happened and has continuously happened for years.

 

[Hokie81]

Uh, ... you're overlooking a good game by the OL and great running by Travon McMillian!

 

[lucustookis]

Uh, ... you're overlooking a good game by the OL and great running by Travon McMillian!

Travon played well. The OL was decent, not great, but average. At one point, we had several 3 and outs after the D continued to give us a chance to put it away. I can see it now, the sheepish fools running that ignorant trap if GT would have got a field goal or score at the end saying, "the D doesn't stop em when we need it to." LOL, fact is, our O couldn't move the ball in the 4th quarter and only had 338 total yards and we NEEDED the D to stop GT for the entire 3rd and 4th quarters because our O could not move the ball against a team that had 2 starting defensive tackles not playing. Fact is, we should have NEVER, EVER, NEVER EVER been in the situation requiring the D to have to stop Georgia Tech one more time at the end in order to win. With the turnovers and stops caused by our D, we should have been up 10-13 points when GT got the ball back for the final drive. The fact is....we had several "one more times" for the defense. Our O was pathetic......again.

P.S. If you are saying our O played "well or ok", you are insane. Playing "ok" doesn't cut it for an offense in 2015. You have to play WELL. The statement, "played well enough to win" means.........THE O actually did not play well enough to win and the defense won the game for us. 338 total yards against a very wounded and banged up D is a bad showing, even with the 160 or so rushing yards. It's a bad showing. Now, if we have 338 total yards and 275 of them are on the ground, that's a different ballgame. That's a different show. 150 yards rushing in 2015 is not what it was in 1995. Again, Hokie fans have to get out of 1995 mode or even 2003 mode. Those days are over in this offensive age.

 

[mrjolly01]

Both teams took turns trying to give the game to the other one. The personal foul by GT's knucklehead that knocked GT out of FG range prevailed. He trumped our knucklehead's timely dumbass hit out of bounds. And of course Laffler couldn't pick up one first down when he could have taken credit for socking it away.

We were the luckier of two teams that seem insist on shooting themselves in the foot. That said, I'm really glad CFB got that win. Hope he can get one more. Still got to play those games though.

 

[leeanderthal]

I thought it was a typical VT game. Our D gave a lot in the first quart then tightened up. The O throws a few gifts along with some erratic passes but does score some TD's. We have now beaten two of the weakest teams in the conference. Tougher sledding from here on out.
The OC was normal which is ,well, very very bad.

 

[vt1hokie]

You can keep your delusion. Our offense scored 3.3 more points than its opponents gave up(average) on the year. Defense held its opponents to 1.9 points below their season averages. Like it or not the offense and defense is closer than you think. And remember, the offense has had to go against top 50 defenses (6) all year while the defense only played 2 top 50 offenses.

 

[Hoos19NC]

You can keep your delusion. Our offense scored 3.3 more points than its opponents gave up(average) on the year. Defense held its opponents to 1.9 points below their season averages. Like it or not the offense and defense is closer than you think. And remember, the offense has had to go against top 50 defenses (6) all year while the defense only played 2 top 50 offenses.

Very interesting stats, definitely something to think about. Watching them all year I have not had the feeling this is one of the best D's VT has had over the years.

 

[Hokie81]

Travon played well. The OL was decent, not great, but average. At one point, we had several 3 and outs after the D continued to give us a chance to put it away. I can see it now, the sheepish fools running that ignorant trap if GT would have got a field goal or score at the end saying, "the D doesn't stop em when we need it to." LOL, fact is, our O couldn't move the ball in the 4th quarter and only had 338 total yards and we NEEDED the D to stop GT for the entire 3rd and 4th quarters because our O could not move the ball against a team that had 2 starting defensive tackles not playing. Fact is, we should have NEVER, EVER, NEVER EVER been in the situation requiring the D to have to stop Georgia Tech one more time at the end in order to win. With the turnovers and stops caused by our D, we should have been up 10-13 points when GT got the ball back for the final drive. The fact is....we had several "one more times" for the defense. Our O was pathetic......again.

P.S. If you are saying our O played "well or ok", you are insane. Playing "ok" doesn't cut it for an offense in 2015. You have to play WELL. The statement, "played well enough to win" means.........THE O actually did not play well enough to win and the defense won the game for us. 338 total yards against a very wounded and banged up D is a bad showing, even with the 160 or so rushing yards. It's a bad showing. Now, if we have 338 total yards and 275 of them are on the ground, that's a different ballgame. That's a different show. 150 yards rushing in 2015 is not what it was in 1995. Again, Hokie fans have to get out of 1995 mode or even 2003 mode. Those days are over in this offensive age.

PSS - read my lips, 'a good game by the OL and great running by Travon McMillian!' Brewer missed open receivers in addition to throwing the GT pick 6. Don't know what the hell coaches are thinking putting 99.99% run Motley in game. Put Lawson in and let him do his stuff!

 

[lucustookis]

"vt1hokie, post: 48161, member: 1804"]You can keep your delusion. Our offense scored 3.3 more points than its opponents gave up(average) on the year. Defense held its opponents to 1.9 points below their season averages. Like it or not the offense and defense is closer than you think. And remember, the offense has had to go against top 50 defenses (6) all year while the defense only played 2 top 50 offenses."


You do realize VT is 12th in America in Defensive Touchdowns Scored to include 1st in the nation in fumbles gained and top 15 in takeaways? You wrote our offense scored 3.3 more points than its opponents gave up and the D holding opponents to 1.9 points below their season average. Now, to the common mind, this stat would jump out at ya one would think, wow.......the O and D are fairly close. But, to the advanced mind (such as yours truly) one can see that the numbers you are gave are in fact, NOT defensive points allowed or points scored ONLY by the offense. You gave TOTAL points. Therefore, our offense HAS NOT scored 3.3 more points than our opponents averages given up for the year. We scored more AS A TEAM than our opponents averages given up for the year. Therefore, let me refer you back to sentence number one. You do realize VT is 12th in America in Defensive Touchdowns Scored to include 1st in the nation in fumbles gained. In summary, our DEFENSE is largely doing the work of the scoring.

 

[vt1hokie]

I took out the TDs scored by the defense to come up with that stat. Nice try though. The offense has played 6 top 50 defenses and the defense has played 2 top 50 offenses. Can't escape that stat. I guarantee our offensive and defensive stats would be different if we played in the PAC or Big 12. But we don't so as things stand, our offense have scored 3.3 more points a game than the opponent has given up and the defense has held it's opponents to 1.9 less points than their averages. Just facts.

 

[lucustookis]

I took out the TDs scored by the defense to come up with that stat. Nice try though. The offense has played 6 top 50 defenses and the defense has played 2 top 50 offenses. Can't escape that stat. I guarantee our offensive and defensive stats would be different if we played in the PAC or Big 12. But we don't so as things stand, our offense have scored 3.3 more points a game than the opponent has given up and the defense has held it's opponents to 1.9 less points than their averages. Just facts.

Thankfully, people like you don't get to "guarantee." Let me end this discussion by putting this to rest and making you look a bit foolish. Did you know there are stats that adjust for the opponents opposite unit strength (offense and defense)? You see, guarantees by people that do not know what they are talking about are meaningless. Your statistic is a joke. Here are the updated FBS outsiders D and O rankings for efficiency. Our Defense is 27th. Our Offense is 81st. What does this stat look at? See below. Opponent strength is adjusted, and the ole, "if we played in the PAC 12 emotional TSL argument, our O or D would be this....." is useless because there is such a stat that actually accounts for and measures the strength of the opponents O and D. Not only that, the old, "VT defense giving up big plays" lol, that's also accounted for. Or the ole TSL favorite, "our offensive coaches keep it conservative because they know our D effects the flow and changes our own playcalling." All of those excuses, literally adjusted for in one statistic. Let me repeat, our D ranks 27th nationally, the O ranks 81st. See below.

• Success Rate: A common Football Outsiders tool used to measure efficiency by determining whether every play of a given game was successful or not. The terms of success in college football: 50 percent of necessary yardage on first down, 70 percent on second down, and 100 percent on third and fourth down.
• IsoPPP: An explosiveness measure derived from determining the equivalent point value of every yard line (based on the expected number of points an offense could expect to score from that yard line) and, therefore, every play of a given game. IsoPPP looks at only the per-play value of a team's successful plays (as defined by the Success Rate definition above); its goal is to separate the explosiveness component from the efficiency component altogether. For more information about IsoPPP
• Redzone S&P+: This measures drive-finishing ability by looking at the success rate and IsoPPP measures for only plays that come after a first down inside the opponent's 40-yard line. Coaches start adjusting their play-calling for a shrinking field closer to the 40 than the 20, and there is more separation between good and bad offenses if you look at plays in this range instead of plays inside the 20-yard line (as the redzone is commonly defined).
• FP+: This is an opponent-adjusted measure of your ability to create field position advantages. This is based on drive data instead of per-play data. For an offense, it looks at field position you create for your defense (with help from special teams, which is not yet stripped out of these numbers); for a defense, it looks at the opposite.
• Opponent adjustments: Each team's output for a given category (Success Rate, IsoPPP, and split stats like rushing, passing, redzone, standard downs, passing downs, etc.) is compared to the expected output based upon their opponents.
• Garbage time adjustments:

 

[RB4]

Put the numbers away and use your eyes.. This D is not good. Wont call names ill just use numbers... but 90 Can;t tackle at all. 54 takes the worse angles in space and the other teams RB/QB get to the second level easy. We usually play good D against GT though but this defense is hard to watch after being use to the groups we have fielded the past decade. But the system is not broke, we just do not have the athletes we are use to around here. This offense is VERY VERY good but our coaches drag them down. I hate to say it... but I think this Offense would be better if Stiney was OC then, we at least lined up and ran the ball.. There are things that SL does that drives me insane.. the FullBack sweeps (ran this one time on 3rd and 9), and the hurry up check with me offense that still does not snap the ball until there is 3 seconds on the play clock. I think with the right offensive coach this offense could be ELITE its a shame that these pieces are being wasted by a very bad offensive staff!

 

[Hoos19NC]

Wow.....you had me RB4 until you said the "offense is Very Very Good". I think you have one really good RB, the rest are average. Your OL is horrible.....you have decent receivers but your QB isn't good enough to get them the ball most of the time. I thought Brewer was your guy but I'm not sure he is any better or as good as Motley. And it's anyone's guess what Lawson can do.....I still believe London taught Beamer how to totally waste a red shirt on Lawson.

 

[lucustookis]

Put the numbers away and use your eyes.. This D is not good. This offense is VERY VERY good but our coaches drag them down. I hate to say it... but I think this Offense would be better if Stiney was OC !

Ummm...wow...credibility hit there dude.
1. Put the numbers away (because the numbers disprove your point)
2. The D is not good (it actually......is pretty good).
3. The offense is very very good (dude, lay off the sauce).
4. Stiney back as OC (I asked you above to lay off the sauce).

The problem is.....eyes can be good when common sense is applied, but the eyes are linked to emotion and see what they want or don't want to see. In this case, your expectation of our D historically is your reference point for a good or bad defense, and of course, this is a false premise. It's where emotion takes over and you "see" what you want or don't want to see. The reference point for a good D is all other 127 teams in the country, not the 2006 top 5 VT D. Our D is not great by any means, and it borders on good to very much above average. It's somewhere in the category. The great thing about research and numbers is....it can bring the emotional level of thought back to earth.

Most important....it's important for you to understand what our offense is. This applies also to the defense. And that is......the coaches, the players, our culture, the trainers........all of this makes up our Offense. Our Offense is not just the talent of the 11 starters or what their "upside" is. I agree we are talented offensively compared to our ranking of 88th in the country. This is where common sense and the eyeball test is spot on. We have been this way for years at VT on offense. Our talent has been FAR BETTER than the ranking or play on the field offensively, but coaching is part of the offense. It's also why this is Coach Frank Beamers last season.

Want to know what is scary? Our Offense may actually have more talent than the Defense for this given year. That's unheard of at Tech, but this may actually be the year, but again.....level of play on the field and outcome....results....production....88th in America and nowhere close to the defensive production which again.....goes back to.....culture and Foster. Foster and the defensive culture is mostly unparalleled by 95% of FBS Teams. Our offensive culture and coaching is surpassed by 95% of FBS Teams. This is not a one year thing. This is a decade and one half thing. Again....it's why this is Coach Frank Beamer's last year as Head Coach of VT.

 

[vt1hokie]

Thankfully, people like you don't get to "guarantee." Let me end this discussion by putting this to rest and making you look a bit foolish. Did you know there are stats that adjust for the opponents opposite unit strength (offense and defense)? You see, guarantees by people that do not know what they are talking about are meaningless. Your statistic is a joke. Here are the updated FBS outsiders D and O rankings for efficiency. Our Defense is 27th. Our Offense is 81st. What does this stat look at? See below. Opponent strength is adjusted, and the ole, "if we played in the PAC 12 emotional TSL argument, our O or D would be this....." is useless because there is such a stat that actually accounts for and measures the strength of the opponents O and D. Not only that, the old, "VT defense giving up big plays" lol, that's also accounted for. Or the ole TSL favorite, "our offensive coaches keep it conservative because they know our D effects the flow and changes our own playcalling." All of those excuses, literally adjusted for in one statistic. Let me repeat, our D ranks 27th nationally, the O ranks 81st. See below.

• Success Rate: A common Football Outsiders tool used to measure efficiency by determining whether every play of a given game was successful or not. The terms of success in college football: 50 percent of necessary yardage on first down, 70 percent on second down, and 100 percent on third and fourth down.
• IsoPPP: An explosiveness measure derived from determining the equivalent point value of every yard line (based on the expected number of points an offense could expect to score from that yard line) and, therefore, every play of a given game. IsoPPP looks at only the per-play value of a team's successful plays (as defined by the Success Rate definition above); its goal is to separate the explosiveness component from the efficiency component altogether. For more information about IsoPPP
• Redzone S&P+: This measures drive-finishing ability by looking at the success rate and IsoPPP measures for only plays that come after a first down inside the opponent's 40-yard line. Coaches start adjusting their play-calling for a shrinking field closer to the 40 than the 20, and there is more separation between good and bad offenses if you look at plays in this range instead of plays inside the 20-yard line (as the redzone is commonly defined).
• FP+: This is an opponent-adjusted measure of your ability to create field position advantages. This is based on drive data instead of per-play data. For an offense, it looks at field position you create for your defense (with help from special teams, which is not yet stripped out of these numbers); for a defense, it looks at the opposite.
• Opponent adjustments: Each team's output for a given category (Success Rate, IsoPPP, and split stats like rushing, passing, redzone, standard downs, passing downs, etc.) is compared to the expected output based upon their opponents.
• Garbage time adjustments:

TL;DR

I gave facts that can't be refuted. But by all means, keep spewing your useless drivel. The defense is/has been a disaster and the offense is on par with them. Simply stated, the TEAM isn't very good.

nm

 

[RB4]

I think Ford, McMillan, Hodges. is as good of a three headed monster on offense in the ACC but cant show it because the system we run holds them back big time.. I am saying the Talent is VERY VERY good on O. Our D has been gashed all year with bonehead play.. Even if your "stats" say otherwise... I seen with my eyes ECU make us look like a 1AA team. Miami.. a very bad Miami beat us.. If we played an SEC/ BIG 12 schedule the number on our D would be waaaay different .. GT is a stat booster for Defenses in some defensive categories.. These numbers and stats/ rankings would mean a lot more to me if compared to teams that played the exact same schedule if not then I don't buy the number I trust my eyes more. Boston college is ranked ahead of Bama for total defense.. .Does that really mean BC has a better defense?

 

[lucustookis]

TL;DR

I gave facts that can't be refuted. But by all means, keep spewing your useless drivel. The defense is/has been a disaster and the offense is on par with them. Simply stated, the TEAM isn't very good.nm

You just lost the argument. A sign of a "loss" is when you take the argument from the substance of the issue and go personal.....which you just did when you made the useless drivel comment. You have given overwhelming opinions in your argument fueled by emotion.........and this is ok......if you have facts to support them. The FACT is.....you had NO CLUE there was a statistical formula that included the opponents strength of schedule on the O and D side of the ball. You wrote that you "guaranteed" our D would not rank as well and the O would rank better if our conference was different, and I literally just gave you stats that calculate, factor in, and include the opponents strength of schedule on the O and D side of the ball......and again.....that stat is....VT's defense is 27th. Our O is 88th.

When you write....."the defense is/has been a disaster" you look like a fool. Think about that. When people read that.....they think, "man, this guy is foolish" to write that our D "is and has been" a disaster. When you write the "offense is on par with them" this is an attempt to make our offense and defense "the same." Fact is....they are not the same. As for the "TEAM" not being good. That's irrelevant to the subject matter. Did you know that Peking is in China and Sochi is in Russia? Those two are irrelevant to the conversation which was about the Offense and Defense.

 

[VT33]

I think Ford, McMillan, Hodges. is as good of a three headed monster on offense in the ACC but cant show it because the system we run holds them back big time.. I am saying the Talent is VERY VERY good on O. Our D has been gashed all year with bonehead play.. Even if your "stats" say otherwise... I seen with my eyes ECU make us look like a 1AA team. Miami.. a very bad Miami beat us.. If we played an SEC/ BIG 12 schedule the number on our D would be waaaay different .. GT is a stat booster for Defenses in some defensive categories.. These numbers and stats/ rankings would mean a lot more to me if compared to teams that played the exact same schedule if not then I don't buy the number I trust my eyes more. Boston college is ranked ahead of Bama for total defense.. .Does that really mean BC has a better defense?

RB4, I totally agree. I think Hodges, Ford, and McMillian could play for a lot of teams. The fullback sweeps you mentioned were right after they took McMillian out when he had helped the team get into the Red Zone(!) And, if I remember correctly, Mc never touched the ball again during those series if any. Why? All of a sudden number of touches becomes a big talking point with our primary(at least primary after a bunch of weeks) running back. I think Motley got some touches there. Might have been Shane doing his "rotation" of personnel.

Time we'll tell how good these players are. Eddie Royal never had an extreme amount of catches while on the team and had something like 15 in one of his first pro games. Brewer has some faults, but he's better than Motley and the D has huge holes. Most of the DBs are still learning and Mato is lost at linebacker right now. If you had a,say, Ben Taylor there this year, a lot of those runs get stopped. Don't forget, Bucky is a red shirt sophomore, don't be surprised if he doesn't go pro.

 

[lucustookis]

I think Ford, McMillan, Hodges. is as good of a three headed monster on offense in the ACC but cant show it because the system we run holds them back big time.. I am saying the Talent is VERY VERY good on O. Our D has been gashed all year with bonehead play.. Even if your "stats" say otherwise... I seen with my eyes ECU make us look like a 1AA team. Miami.. a very bad Miami beat us.. If we played an SEC/ BIG 12 schedule the number on our D would be waaaay different .. GT is a stat booster for Defenses in some defensive categories.. These numbers and stats/ rankings would mean a lot more to me if compared to teams that played the exact same schedule if not then I don't buy the number I trust my eyes more. Boston college is ranked ahead of Bama for total defense.. .Does that really mean BC has a better defense?

I agree. the Talent on O is good. Now, "as for the D being gashed all year with a bonehead play" <-------your words and then you write, even if my "stats" say otherwise. Lets stop right there. They are not "my" stats. They are your stats and everyone's stats, and thankfully, the people doing them understand that defensive strength is not just one play, but it's the entire game.....every play, and the part that you just can't get through that skull of yours (no matter how simple I try to explain it) is that VT ranks well in many negative plays that are not boneheaded. They rank very well in many 1 or 2 yard plays, and many takeaways and flipped field positions by the D given to our O. This part.....you just simply can not grasp or understand. The fact is......our Defense THIS YEAR is doing what a 27th ranked defense in the United States is supposed to do......."it will get gashed on several plays each game whether boneheaded or not." Again, your comparison is to the VT defenses of old which were an anomaly. Defenses ranked top 5 and 10 every year which simply should not have been as good as they were at VT. The standard of comparison is the other 127 teams in football, not the old VT defense. VT each game plays an opponent, not a former VT team of 7 years ago. This part.....it's hard for you to overcome and separate.

Once again....a final part that the white matter of your cortex just simply does not process and this is.......VT playing in the SEC or Big 12 and our D number ranking way different. Once again, the strength of schedule of our opponents offenses are factored in to defensive efficiency rankings. I know...it hurts. It bothers you. It makes you uncomfortable, but it is still true and something you are going to have to deal with. Finally, there is no need to address you individual examples of Miami or ECU. The season is 12 games, not two games. Again, 27th ranked defenses will have 3-4 games in which they lay eggs or get beat pretty good. Again, this is NORMAL for a 27th ranked defense. An 80th ranked defense will lay 6-7 eggs a season. A VT defense of 2006 will lay one egg. It's NORMAL. This doesn't make the defense "BAD". As for Bama and BC. Bama ranks higher in defensive efficiency. You gave Total Defense or yards per game in which BC ranks better and in this area.......strength of the opponent is not factored in. Factor in Efficiency Ranking (strength of schedule of the opponents) and believe it or not, a team like Oki State is top 20 in Defense as is Oklahoma as is West Virginia. (3 Big 12 schools.).

Final statement. You have got to get through your head that the standard of comparison for our Defense is 127 other teams on defense in 2015, not the VT defenses of the past 15 years. Our D has been so good that fans that just don't know enough about football simply can't grasp what a 27th ranked defense looks like, but at VT in 2015, you are seeing it. But....in some people's minds, its because they just can't get past comparing it to the VT defenses of old, but again.....this is what a 27th ranked defense looks like. It is also why people such as myself were kicking and screaming in the mid-late 2000s about missed opportunities for national title appearances due to the fact that people such as myself that knows football, understand the defenses we had were insanely an anomaly and out of this world, and for the fact that........if we had ANY KIND of an offense, we would have competed for at least 1 national title from 2005 through 2010. This is why I have the distaste for Stinespring. The offenses were ranking in the 80's to 100's. Our D was so good, and people like me mentioned this at the time, that if we could just get a top 40 offense, we could compete for a title. Forget about a top 10 or top 20 or top 30 O, if Stinespring could have just had one offense rank in the top 40's from 2005-2010, we could have played for a national title, yet he could not do it, and Frank allowed it.

 

[vt1hokie]

I agree. the Talent on O is good. Now, "as for the D being gashed all year with a bonehead play" <-------your words and then you write, even if my "stats" say otherwise. Lets stop right there. They are not "my" stats. They are your stats and everyone's stats, and thankfully, the people doing them understand that defensive strength is not just one play, but it's the entire game.....every play, and the part that you just can't get through that skull of yours (no matter how simple I try to explain it) is that VT ranks well in many negative plays that are not boneheaded. They rank very well in many 1 or 2 yard plays, and many takeaways and flipped field positions by the D given to our O. This part.....you just simply can not grasp or understand. The fact is......our Defense THIS YEAR is doing what a 27th ranked defense in the United States is supposed to do......."it will get gashed on several plays each game whether boneheaded or not." Again, your comparison is to the VT defenses of old which were an anomaly. Defenses ranked top 5 and 10 every year which simply should not have been as good as they were at VT. The standard of comparison is the other 127 teams in football, not the old VT defense. VT each game plays an opponent, not a former VT team of 7 years ago. This part.....it's hard for you to overcome and separate.

Once again....a final part that the white matter of your cortex just simply does not process and this is.......VT playing in the SEC or Big 12 and our D number ranking way different. Once again, the strength of schedule of our opponents offenses are factored in to defensive efficiency rankings. I know...it hurts. It bothers you. It makes you uncomfortable, but it is still true and something you are going to have to deal with. Finally, there is no need to address you individual examples of Miami or ECU. The season is 12 games, not two games. Again, 27th ranked defenses will have 3-4 games in which they lay eggs or get beat pretty good. Again, this is NORMAL for a 27th ranked defense. An 80th ranked defense will lay 6-7 eggs a season. A VT defense of 2006 will lay one egg. It's NORMAL. This doesn't make the defense "BAD". As for Bama and BC. Bama ranks higher in defensive efficiency. You gave Total Defense or yards per game in which BC ranks better and in this area.......strength of the opponent is not factored in. Factor in Efficiency Ranking (strength of schedule of the opponents) and believe it or not, a team like Oki State is top 20 in Defense as is Oklahoma as is West Virginia. (3 Big 12 schools.).

Final statement. You have got to get through your head that the standard of comparison for our Defense is 127 other teams on defense in 2015, not the VT defenses of the past 15 years. Our D has been so good that fans that just don't know enough about football simply can't grasp what a 27th ranked defense looks like, but at VT in 2015, you are seeing it. But....in some people's minds, its because they just can't get past comparing it to the VT defenses of old, but again.....this is what a 27th ranked defense looks like. It is also why people such as myself were kicking and screaming in the mid-late 2000s about missed opportunities for national title appearances due to the fact that people such as myself that knows football, understand the defenses we had were insanely an anomaly and out of this world, and for the fact that........if we had ANY KIND of an offense, we would have competed for at least 1 national title from 2005 through 2010. This is why I have the distaste for Stinespring. The offenses were ranking in the 80's to 100's. Our D was so good, and people like me mentioned this at the time, that if we could just get a top 40 offense, we could compete for a title. Forget about a top 10 or top 20 or top 30 O, if Stinespring could have just had one offense rank in the top 40's from 2005-2010, we could have played for a national title, yet he could not do it, and Frank allowed it.

If writing short and succinct posts stating fact is losing then I'm guilty as charged. The defense has been a disaster. They've played only 2 top 50 offenses and have given up over 30 3 times. Given up over 40 twice. This is not a great defense. Quite awful really. The only thing Bud is putting on his back is all of his shit when he heads out of town.

 

[lucustookis]

You have no fact. You have emotion and most important....your true colors are showing.......you hate Bud. Again, it's ok.....just be a man and say it. Have integrity. Stop living a lie. Say how you feel about Bud. You think he's not very good and you want him gone. Just say it and man up. I feel that way about Stiney. And of course.....this bothers you. You loved that Stiney regimen and still haven't got over the fact that he was removed as OC, and your anger is directed at Foster. Again, data says.......when strength of schedule is accounted for with offenses we have played, we rank 27th in D. Most important......Bud will be around. Your hero..........he's buying boxes at Walmart because Stiney is gone. Maybe Narrows High will pick him up.

In closing...
Defense 27th in America
Offense 87th in America.
Just the facts man. Emotional blow hard is what you spew.....and people like you as fans? Lots of changes a coming in this offensive age. We are getting a bigtime O mind in, the old O regime is out, and good ole Bud is running the show defensively. Chin up. The outcome is a good one. Come back and attempt an argument when our D is not ranked in the top 40 and the O cracks the top 80 because you don't have one and you are looking like a fool trying to argue otherwise.

 

[B1dee]

If writing short and succinct posts stating fact is losing then I'm guilty as charged. The defense has been a disaster. They've played only 2 top 50 offenses and have given up over 30 3 times. Given up over 40 twice. This is not a great defense. Quite awful really. The only thing Bud is putting on his back is all of his shit when he heads out of town.

This is not sarcastic, that last sentence is too funny...

 

[B1dee]

"vt1hokie, post: 48161, member: 1804"]You can keep your delusion. Our offense scored 3.3 more points than its opponents gave up(average) on the year. Defense held its opponents to 1.9 points below their season averages. Like it or not the offense and defense is closer than you think. And remember, the offense has had to go against top 50 defenses (6) all year while the defense only played 2 top 50 offenses."


You do realize VT is 12th in America in Defensive Touchdowns Scored to include 1st in the nation in fumbles gained and top 15 in takeaways? You wrote our offense scored 3.3 more points than its opponents gave up and the D holding opponents to 1.9 points below their season average. Now, to the common mind, this stat would jump out at ya one would think, wow.......the O and D are fairly close. But, to the advanced mind (such as yours truly) one can see that the numbers you are gave are in fact, NOT defensive points allowed or points scored ONLY by the offense. You gave TOTAL points. Therefore, our offense HAS NOT scored 3.3 more points than our opponents averages given up for the year. We scored more AS A TEAM than our opponents averages given up for the year. Therefore, let me refer you back to sentence number one. You do realize VT is 12th in America in Defensive Touchdowns Scored to include 1st in the nation in fumbles gained. In summary, our DEFENSE is largely doing the work of the scoring.

Afraid UNC will drop over 40 on our D. Hope we can keep up...

 

[Cavgator]

You can keep your delusion. Our offense scored 3.3 more points than its opponents gave up(average) on the year. Defense held its opponents to 1.9 points below their season averages. Like it or not the offense and defense is closer than you think. And remember, the offense has had to go against top 50 defenses (6) all year while the defense only played 2 top 50 offenses.

Don't bother. Stiney has to have a restraining order keeping him no closer to Lane Stadium than Richmond before Lucustookis will ever blame someone else. It's like Stiney stole his girlfriend from him. He's obsessed, and it is laughable to accuse others of being hyperemotional.

 

[lucustookis]

Don't bother. Stiney has to have a restraining order keeping him no closer to Lane Stadium than Richmond before Lucustookis will ever blame someone else. It's like Stiney stole his girlfriend from him. He's obsessed, and it is laughable to accuse others of being hyperemotional.

Faslity. I blame first and foremost Frank Beamer; therefore, this disproves your idiotic point. By the way.....Franks got 2 to the 3 games left at VT and he's taking his "shaddow" will soon be sent packing. Therefore, there is really no other 2 people to blame. I blame Beamer and Stiney for our offensive culture and situation and that is REASONABLE. It's not hyperemotional. Afterall, one was the HC and one was the CEO of the offense for over a decade. Who should we also blame? Foster? Blame him for the offense? LOL

 

[RB4]

Yeah Beamer could have really made a move for this team and he did not.. He had a pretty big hand in this decline.. still love the man but truth is the truth.. Lucus I know you are all about taking up for the Defense.. I dont blame you they have done some awesome things for us in the past, but the numbers do not mean anything. We have played BC, and GT those two teams alone can skew the numbers.. But when I watch this team they make little mistakes that cause big problems. Bad angles, losing gap control .. This unit is really not as good as the hype machine tried to make them preseason.. i.e. "sacksburg". It is not the system though it is the performance. unlike the offensive problems. I have a feeling though that emotion and love for Beamer will make this team look like the D of old saturday... 07 status.. maybe.. i hope..

 

[vt1hokie]

You have no fact. You have emotion and most important....your true colors are showing.......you hate Bud. Again, it's ok.....just be a man and say it. Have integrity. Stop living a lie. Say how you feel about Bud. You think he's not very good and you want him gone. Just say it and man up. I feel that way about Stiney. And of course.....this bothers you. You loved that Stiney regimen and still haven't got over the fact that he was removed as OC, and your anger is directed at Foster. Again, data says.......when strength of schedule is accounted for with offenses we have played, we rank 27th in D. Most important......Bud will be around. Your hero..........he's buying boxes at Walmart because Stiney is gone. Maybe Narrows High will pick him up.

In closing...
Defense 27th in America
Offense 87th in America.
Just the facts man. Emotional blow hard is what you spew.....and people like you as fans? Lots of changes a coming in this offensive age. We are getting a bigtime O mind in, the old O regime is out, and good ole Bud is running the show defensively. Chin up. The outcome is a good one. Come back and attempt an argument when our D is not ranked in the top 40 and the O cracks the top 80 because you don't have one and you are looking like a fool trying to argue otherwise.

I like Bud a lot actually. Even with his substandard recruiting I half think would be interesting to see what he could do with the top spot. But I'm not going to pretend that this is one of his better defenses or even a good defense like you are. We have stats and we have the eye test to prove that it isn't. Again, his defense is only holding teams to 1.9 points below their average. I haven't looked at Bama's or Clemson's or even Ohio State's but I can guarantee that the number is much larger for their defenses. The problems are because of Bud. It's been his defense and his overall stubbornness and refusal to play zone even when we're up that has caused plenty of late game collapses. Just in the past 5 years you can count them up. Cincy, BC, Maryland, Florida St, ECU 2X, Boise St, and Miami. He has not called good situational defense consistently since 2006. Again, we've played 2 top 50 offenses. We will play another top 50 offense tomorrow. Let's see how your savior is looking when he gets 40 dropped on him.

 

[lucustookis]

Yeah Beamer could have really made a move for this team and he did not.. He had a pretty big hand in this decline.. still love the man but truth is the truth.. Lucus I know you are all about taking up for the Defense.. I dont blame you they have done some awesome things for us in the past, but the numbers do not mean anything. We have played BC, and GT those two teams alone can skew the numbers.. But when I watch this team they make little mistakes that cause big problems. Bad angles, losing gap control .. This unit is really not as good as the hype machine tried to make them preseason.. i.e. "sacksburg". It is not the system though it is the performance. unlike the offensive problems. I have a feeling though that emotion and love for Beamer will make this team look like the D of old saturday... 07 status.. maybe.. i hope..

I agree with your comments on the defense. I 100% agree. Where I disagree is..........your description of our D is accurate.....but you describe a 27th ranked defense, not a 100th ranked defense. Your standard of comparison is to the old VT defenses which is meaningless. The standard is the other 127 teams this year on defense, and the numbers say (even with GT, BC, and our offensive opponents strength factored in) we are 27th. Again, I agree with what you describe about our D, but your description is a 27th ranked defense, not a top 10 defense which is the usual VT type D. Because our Defense is as described above does not automatically mean it is BAD. This is what a 27th ranked defense DOES. It's normal.

 

[lucustookis]

I like Bud a lot actually. Even with his substandard recruiting I half think would be interesting to see what he could do with the top spot. But I'm not going to pretend that this is one of his better defenses or even a good defense like you are. We have stats and we have the eye test to prove that it isn't. Again, his defense is only holding teams to 1.9 points below their average. I haven't looked at Bama's or Clemson's or even Ohio State's but I can guarantee that the number is much larger for their defenses. The problems are because of Bud. It's been his defense and his overall stubbornness and refusal to play zone even when we're up that has caused plenty of late game collapses. Just in the past 5 years you can count them up. Cincy, BC, Maryland, Florida St, ECU 2X, Boise St, and Miami. He has not called good situational defense consistently since 2006. Again, we've played 2 top 50 offenses. We will play another top 50 offense tomorrow. Let's see how your savior is looking when he gets 40 dropped on him.

Fact 1. First,,,your boy Stiney is the recruiting coordinator
Fact 2. VT's defensive recruiting (defensive side of the ball only) since 2001 has averaged 14th in America. Since 2010, the D has averaged 15th in America in recruiting.
Fact 3. Situational Defense since 2006 and you say Foster has not been good. Well, thankfully, football outsiders actually factors in defensive efficiency for "key drives, key situations" and those numbers since 2006 for our defense are......2nd, 5th, 1st, 15th, 18th, 21st, 8th, 10th, 6th, 27th. The average defense efficiency ranking since 2006 (10 seasons) is.......10th in America.

Why do you continue to post? You are being factoided. Factoiding is crushing you.
Conclusions from the facts above are...
1. Stiney took over as the RC about 3 years ago. As Drago's Soviet trainer stated, "whatever he hits, he destroys." Change the word "hits" with "touches" and there are your results. We talk about the recruiting problems and when we take a deep look, guess who was put in charge of it? LOL. You know who. If he takes over water duties at VT, low and behold, we will have a water problem with 12 months. It is what it is man.

2. Whatever you want to say about Bud's recruiting......ummmmm, we're getting it done defensively in recruiting REGARDLESS of the Va in state misses of 5 star defensive players which are going to Bama REGARDLESS of who is at VT recruiting. We have recruited 15th in average since 2010 and 14th on average since 2001. This is defensive recruiting only, not offensive recruiting.

3. Again...situations and the ole TSL excuses that have no facts to support them such as "our D doesn't stop em when we need it," or the "QB running is hurting us and makes our D bad," or "if we played in another conference." All of this is accounted for in one stat called defensive efficiency ranking. I have given you that stat.

 

[Hoos19NC]

Fact 1. First,,,your boy Stiney is the recruiting coordinator
Fact 2. VT's defensive recruiting (defensive side of the ball only) since 2001 has averaged 14th in America. Since 2010, the D has averaged 15th in America in recruiting.
Fact 3. Situational Defense since 2006 and you say Foster has not been good. Well, thankfully, football outsiders actually factors in defensive efficiency for "key drives, key situations" and those numbers since 2006 for our defense are......2nd, 5th, 1st, 15th, 18th, 21st, 8th, 10th, 6th, 27th. The average defense efficiency ranking since 2006 (10 seasons) is.......10th in America.

Why do you continue to post? You are being factoided. Factoiding is crushing you.
Conclusions from the facts above are...
1. Stiney took over as the RC about 3 years ago. As Drago's Soviet trainer stated, "whatever he hits, he destroys." Change the word "hits" with "touches" and there are your results. We talk about the recruiting problems and when we take a deep look, guess who was put in charge of it? LOL. You know who. If he takes over water duties at VT, low and behold, we will have a water problem with 12 months. It is what it is man.

2. Whatever you want to say about Bud's recruiting......ummmmm, we're getting it done defensively in recruiting REGARDLESS of the Va in state misses of 5 star defensive players which are going to Bama REGARDLESS of who is at VT recruiting. We have recruited 15th in average since 2010 and 14th on average since 2001. This is defensive recruiting only, not offensive recruiting.

3. Again...situations and the ole TSL excuses that have no facts to support them such as "our D doesn't stop em when we need it," or the "QB running is hurting us and makes our D bad," or "if we played in another conference." All of this is accounted for in one stat called defensive efficiency ranking. I have given you that stat.

Bud is that you????

 

[lucustookis]

Bud is that you????

Loss!. No facts. Argument over.
P.S. I can do this all day, all night, all year. We can do this! ANYTIME and I repeat, ANYTIME someone hammers or critiques Bud or our defense over the long haul (keywords there-over the long haul) I step in and give facts and win arguments. Critique for this year? More than valid. Justified 100%, but when that critique turns to ignorance as evidenced by statements close to this one, "Bud is no longer what he was" or "We've been struggling as a D for a long time" or "I want Bud gone because he just isn't that good anymore"......then I step in. Because facts disprove the above 3 statements. If people hammer him or the D this year.....then it's all good because facts support that our D is not as good THIS YEAR compared to the VT DEFENSES (not the rest of the country) but the VT Defenses of old. But, even if critique is given this year for our D or Bud, I step in if the D is made out to look like a 75th or 80th ranked defense. It's ranked 27th, and lets say the rankings have it wrong completely and are just somehow off....ok, will move it and talk about it like its 50th. That's fine. That's still average.

Why do I do this? Known commodity. A simple business tenet. Additionally, keep running your best racehorse when he has won regularly. Bud Foster and the VT Defense are exactly the examples above.

 

[Hoos19NC]

LMAO.....dude ease up. Your D isn't up to Buds normal standard this year, it happens. Is it better than the offense? I certainly wouldn't agree against that point. Your rants are like the Blue Clowns on crack.....if it will make you feel better we should all post something nice about Bud....I'll start....Bud has a nice lunch pail. Carry on Bud, no worries you will find a job after the season I feel sure.