Is there any point in starting a CU game thread?
- Thread starter hokiemtc
- Start date
Clemson has elite athletes all over and especially on the defense. It's not going to be an easy game for offense. But don't give up just yet.
This upcoming drive will tell how this game will go. We score, we have a chance, we don't it is over. By the way, where is Stroman?
We Can't afford another slow start in the 2nd half. Need to but together a drive, even if it is a FG, need to put some more points on the board.
HR, I know but those fouls were clearly holding penalties. I am just happy that they picked up the flag on the trick play that allowed us to score the first TD.
I bet the refs got together and decided to screw VT.....you ever seen holding before? Your DB's just continue to hold jerseys.
Holding or pass-interference, they were flags. I think the refs are calling consistently on both sides.
Hodges has to be the worst catching WR we have ever played. Unless the QB throws a perfect pass, he can't come up with it, and even then it is a 50-50 thing with him.
Our offensive play calling has been really clueless in this game. I mean really, really bad.
So, who calls plays for us? I never see Fuente signalling anything, so it's our OC, right? Fuente needs to can this clown and get someone in here who knows what they are doing. This guy has no game feel whatsoever, and it's been that way for huge stretches this season.
I thought this staff were supposed to be some kind of offensive gurus or something?
So, who calls plays for us? I never see Fuente signalling anything, so it's our OC, right? Fuente needs to can this clown and get someone in here who knows what they are doing. This guy has no game feel whatsoever, and it's been that way for huge stretches this season.
I thought this staff were supposed to be some kind of offensive gurus or something?
Offensive genius in the non-Power 5 conference, aka the minor league. This is the ACC, and that crap won't work here. Regardless, we have every little talent to begin with. So, keep that in perspective. This staff needs to go recruit like mad now. Beamer left them with next to nothing.
So now that we've fumbled and bumbled about for 3 qtrs, our OC finally realized we can't block them so now hes calling slants, jet sweeps, misdirection draws and other similar plays designed to counteract the lack of oline protection.
Ummm....why wait until the 4th qtr to make these adjustments? Why not make them in the 1st or 2nd qtrs?
Ummm....why wait until the 4th qtr to make these adjustments? Why not make them in the 1st or 2nd qtrs?
Also, Bud's pressure had thrown Clemson completely off their rhythm in the 2nd qtr. I'll even go as far to say that Watson was a little rattled. Why stop doing it? After halftime, Clemson got their rhythm back and their offense started rolling again. Why stop doing something that was working really well?
2 QB draws on our last series of downs is telling how bad our rushing game is. Then on the final play of the series, McMillan misses a block on a blitzing LB. Uggh. VT needs much more production out of the RB spot next year.
Year one of JuFu and his staff. We still have a chance to win 10 games. I'll take that.
I thought in the second half of the season, we started slow in most competitive games. Always start trying to "establish the run". Then eventually, after finding out we have a very weak run game with weak run blocking, we go to the pass and climb back in the lead. With this year's team, we almost are like establish the pass so we can sneak a run in at times(Evans keeper?).Against someone like Clemson there is no room for this failed experiment. In the Pitt game and the ND game,and Duke game, we could overcome our slow starts. We fell short tonight. Great effort but you wonder what would have happened if we came out trying to establish the pass first and let Evans get his rhythm going. I know we will lose receivers and Rogers next year but if we improve in the run game, we'll be OK.
And Bud, good game, but if we're not able to cover these world class receivers consistently, just start blitzing early and take out chances. When we're that unstable in the DB slots, pressure looks like it can make up for it. It showed today.
Liked the fact that Dabo gave the Hokie players and coaches a lot of credit after the game, a break or two and we could have gotten them.
Good luck to Clemson, but still looks like Bama is in another league.
And Bud, good game, but if we're not able to cover these world class receivers consistently, just start blitzing early and take out chances. When we're that unstable in the DB slots, pressure looks like it can make up for it. It showed today.
Liked the fact that Dabo gave the Hokie players and coaches a lot of credit after the game, a break or two and we could have gotten them.
Good luck to Clemson, but still looks like Bama is in another league.
Yeah, I'm not getting what all the hand-wringing is about here. No, Fuente did not call a masterful game from start to finish, but he threw in some wrinkles and put together 5 very good scoring drives against a very athletic defense. When you have absolutely no running game outside of QB draws and read options, it's kind of hard to keep a defense on its toes. None of our RBs can block for crap (McMilian is horrible at blocking), and this line is still a patchwork remnant of the Beamer era. When the line can't block or hold the pocket together, it eliminates the vertical game.
All Clemson had to do defensively was scoot up their safety and play press coverage with their CBs on our receivers who weren't going to be able to do much beyond quick-hitting slants and crossing patterns.
I don't think people appreciate how remarkable a coaching job this was by Fuente. With the exception of Evans, these aren't his guys, and he was left with pretty bare cupboards in terms of offensive talent. Evans is a great QB, and our receivers are good, but without a good line and a viable running threat, there's just only so much you can do against a team like Clemson.
On the other side, our defense has been suspect in the running game all year, have given up big play after big play, consistently take horrible angles and over-commit on run plays, our LBs are really not very good at tackling at all, and our CBs, once the pride of the program, have been giving up 3rd and longs and getting torched in man coverage all year.
I just don't know what people expect from Fuente. If this were his 3rd or 4th year, I'd get the complaints/concerns but he inherited a disaster, turned it around drastically, gave us our first ACCCG appearance in 5 years and more wins than we've managed in 5 years as well. Moreover, in a pretty meh performance, we held our own against a team who's 26-2 over their last two seasons, and whose talent is top shelf. We were not expected to win this game, and most people were thinking blowout. All that said, I think we acquitted ourselves remarkably well.
One final note: The 35 points we managed last night is more points than Beamer's staff managed in 3 WHOLE GAMES against Clemson between 2011 and 2012 -- and those defenses were not exactly juggernauts.
My complaint is the middle of the 3rd qtr onwards. Despite having no talent, no running game, no RBs that can block for crap, a patchwork remnant oline, no pocket and no vertical passing game, VT still moved the ball up and down the field at will and scored at will on the #3 team in the country from that time onwards.
The simple fact is, you can game plan and call plays around your weaknesses, as VT proved yet again last night. The Boise States, Utahs and Houstons of the world have been beating top 5 teams for ages now using much less talent than what VT currently has. But if you only call winning plays for 1 qtr a game, then you lose to teams like Syracuse, GT and Clemson, and need miracle comebacks to barely squeak by teams like Pitt, Duke and Notre Dame.
The coaches are obviously bright enough to figure out the right plays. We also obviously have enough talent to score at will when the calls are right. So why does it take 3 qtrs of pure play calling stupidity before our coaches finally get around to putting our players in the proper posititon to succeed?
That's now 6 games this year where the offense has been brilliantly explosive in small spurts but woefully inept for large periods of time. The offensive package to open the game has been pitiful for the most part this year (seriously, an entire week to prepare and your very best opening play is to run up the middle for no gain?????), and the adjustments to get into something that does work have taken far too long, and have cost us several winnable games.
The game plans getting off the bus need to be MUCH better, and if the original game plan turns out to be crap (which has happened a TON this year), then the adjustments to get into something different can't take 3 qtrs to get there. At this level of football, that's wasting way too much time.
The simple fact is, you can game plan and call plays around your weaknesses, as VT proved yet again last night. The Boise States, Utahs and Houstons of the world have been beating top 5 teams for ages now using much less talent than what VT currently has. But if you only call winning plays for 1 qtr a game, then you lose to teams like Syracuse, GT and Clemson, and need miracle comebacks to barely squeak by teams like Pitt, Duke and Notre Dame.
The coaches are obviously bright enough to figure out the right plays. We also obviously have enough talent to score at will when the calls are right. So why does it take 3 qtrs of pure play calling stupidity before our coaches finally get around to putting our players in the proper posititon to succeed?
That's now 6 games this year where the offense has been brilliantly explosive in small spurts but woefully inept for large periods of time. The offensive package to open the game has been pitiful for the most part this year (seriously, an entire week to prepare and your very best opening play is to run up the middle for no gain?????), and the adjustments to get into something that does work have taken far too long, and have cost us several winnable games.
The game plans getting off the bus need to be MUCH better, and if the original game plan turns out to be crap (which has happened a TON this year), then the adjustments to get into something different can't take 3 qtrs to get there. At this level of football, that's wasting way too much time.
I mean, all that shows is issues with consistency which goes back to the crux of my original post about what he inherited. You can throw different looks and different wrinkles at opposing defenses with success, but that doesn't mean you can continue running the exact same plays for the rest of the game because of that success. You still have to mix it up to keep them honest, or they'll be dialed in to every single play.
Unless you are implying the Clemson defense failed to make adjustments, or that limited success using specific looks only limits itself because it's not called every single down, then I'm not sure what you're getting at. What you call disastrous play-calling was as much the corollary of Clemson's defensive looks as it was poor play-calling. If you really get out your spade and dig through every series of every season, you'd find just as many, if not more, "consistency" issues with Bud Foster. That doesn't mean he's a bad coordinator or that we're doing things wrong, necessarily. Sometimes the other teams are just doing more things right. On Clemson's side, their first drive was flawless with a lot of off-tackle draws, QB keepers, sweeps, misdirection and quick-hitters, but they had limited success running a lot of those plays the rest of the game because Foster adjusted. It's just part of the game. I'm also not sure why you think we took three quarters to figure things out. Those two scores before the half were due to offensive adjustments and trickery to offset a lot of Clemson's speed. Hodges probably has a touchdown if not for the PI, and that was setup by the previous few plays in the series.
What you want to see in a coach's first year is improvement from the previous year. By that metric, Fuente has passed with flying colors. Lapses in consistency are likely to happen and that is forgivable. But our offense is clearly trending toward much better, much more cohesive, and much more responsive to what other defenses are throwing at them. I don't know how many Clemson games you've watched in the past few years,but this problem is not unique to just VT.
The game plan was less than perfect, but it was not bad, and considering Clemson posed mismatches almost across the board, I'd say scoring five offensive touchdowns against them is admirable.
Also, the only teams to score more on Clemson's defense this year were Louisville and Pitt, which isn't bad company. Pitt has two top 10 wins, and their offense is extremely well-coached, and Lousiville has Lamar Jackson. In both of those games, Clemson turned the ball over a lot more -- three times against Pitt, and five times against Louisville. Tech managed only one turnover on Clemson, so their 35 points were almost entirely unassisted and I think they saw a much better, more focused Clemson team than either Pitt or Louisville did.
So are there things to improve on? Yeah, of course. Fuente is building a program. But I think he's working ahead of schedule, honestly, and aside from a few quibbles with playcalling, I'm not sure what more you could ask of him.
Last edited:
I think that we have performed better than expected this year. We need to stop acting like spoiled brats and appreciate the vast improvement made this year. This game was a win in my book. #1 - - Clemson won and is in the playoffs. That is good exposure for the ACC and helps us on the recruiting trail. #2 - We beat the point spread. So we looked respectable in our 1 score loss to the #3 team in the country. That hopefully will translate into a better bowl game.
Similar threads
