Pet Peeve

[VT33]

I know we have multiple problems, but there are some things we do that aren't addressed, no matter what the level of the coaching. Here are a few of my pet peeves, in order.

1. The constant delay of looking over to the sidelines to get the play, many times resulting in a rush to beat the play clock and/or taking the clock down at the end of the half or the game. I think this may have cost us a shot at getting down the field at the end of the game vs. Duke. Quicker signals or several scripted plays? Bringin plays in with players or automatic plays with certain defensive formations?

2. Getting burnt on crucial pass plays all through the game. I know we have inexperience at the DB position,but is it possible to play just a little zone or help defense to we don't get burnt with a pass constantly.

3. Changes in Offensive personnel when it seems we are just getting the O rolling(Motley for Brewer at crucial times? Or taking McMillian out after a good run). Let McMillian get fired up and give him the ball.And Brewer has shown consistency the last game, Motley hasn't.

4. Giving up early touchdowns in the 1st quarter to get behind. We have done this a lot the past few years. We have gotten in the habit of going on D even if we win the toss and the opponent scores with a quick drive. It seems we are always on O at first with the other team in the lead. Maybe take the ball first and show just a small amount of confidence(hope) in the O?

Just a few. Anybody have any more. I'm interested in other's opinions.

 

[lucustookis]

You wrote we have given up early TD's in the first quarter to get behind in the last few years. Here is the thing that is important and the equal-opposite.........

Simple common sense reasoning here.......
1. If the D gives up a TD with 2 minutes into the contest, does our O not get the ball back with a chance to tie?

2. The D played horrible against Duke in OT. No question about it. Let me repeat, the D called shelled. My concern is this...........(and it's one of the reasons Frank is on his way out before 2018)........We held Duke to 24 points in regulation. No question, the D let us down in OT, but again, 24 points scored by an offense in 2015 in regulation is going to get most teams a loss. Hokie fans better understand this comment and get out of 1995 or even 2005. Those years and decades are OVER. 24 points scored by a team in 2015 in regulation usually will get you a loss. It is simply not enough points. We lost a high scoring game due to overtime. I don't like losing, but would love to lose a shootout just one time. My point is.......we are going to have to get to the point in our program where we can win a shootout if the D struggles, or to be more specific.....win a game 48 to 37 (where the D gets hammered, but our O just takes over the game and wins it outright). We are not here as a program and it has hurt Beamer. You see the great teams like Bama that can do it, or Ohio State. Want a stingy D to win a ball controlled game, then Ohio State can get you at 23 to 16, or Bama can get you at 20-16, but if you want to play shootout ball like A and M against Bama, then Bama can beat you 47-34 or Ohio State can you beat you 45 to 35, etc. We are not here yet. Many...many teams are and it reflects our poor archaic system and culture.

3. We hear statements like, "the O did enough to win." Again, why is "enough" the keyword. Why not the following......"the O took the game over and won it for us." See my point? When our defense at VT historically since 2001 (on most occasions, not all, but most) does not outright win the game for us..........we are in a ballgame.....almost always. The offense often does not lose the game for us, or the offense sometimes did enough to win, but again........these 2 options are all we have. We have to get to a point where there is a 3rd option and that is......"The O just took the game over and won it outright regardless of the poor Defense."

 

[VT33]

You wrote we have given up early TD's in the first quarter to get behind in the last few years. Here is the thing that is important and the equal-opposite.........
I absolutely agree. The reason I'd like to see the O get the ball 1st occasionally is that our D can't stop many(any?) teams consistently any more. And when the opposition scores most of the time on the first possession, the O trots out behind already. I think this causes our offense to go even more conservative because of the fear of getting down two touchdowns if we have a major turnover early. Lots of our difficulties stem from the "Old Skool" mentality of trying to win a low scoring, defensive battle game. Offenses have progressed more than Defenses lately and you have to be aggressive on O to win games against good teams. Sometimes, you wonder if Bud's defensive scheme has been eclipsed by well coached O with a good QB sometimes. I think we have a bunch of good O players that aren't put in the best position. I know the line is a weakness, then fix it. The Offensive mentality has to change.


Simple common sense reasoning here.......
1. If the D gives up a TD with 2 minutes into the contest, does our O not get the ball back with a chance to tie?

2. The D played horrible against Duke in OT. No question about it. Let me repeat, the D called shelled. My concern is this...........(and it's one of the reasons Frank is on his way out before 2018)........We held Duke to 24 points in regulation. No question, the D let us down in OT, but again, 24 points scored by an offense in 2015 in regulation is going to get most teams a loss. Hokie fans better understand this comment and get out of 1995 or even 2005. Those years and decades are OVER. 24 points scored by a team in 2015 in regulation usually will get you a loss. It is simply not enough points. We lost a high scoring game due to overtime. I don't like losing, but would love to lose a shootout just one time. My point is.......we are going to have to get to the point in our program where we can win a shootout if the D struggles, or to be more specific.....win a game 48 to 37 (where the D gets hammered, but our O just takes over the game and wins it outright). We are not here as a program and it has hurt Beamer. You see the great teams like Bama that can do it, or Ohio State. Want a stingy D to win a ball controlled game, then Ohio State can get you at 23 to 16, or Bama can get you at 20-16, but if you want to play shootout ball like A and M against Bama, then Bama can beat you 47-34 or Ohio State can you beat you 45 to 35, etc. We are not here yet. Many...many teams are and it reflects our poor archaic system and culture.

3. We hear statements like, "the O did enough to win." Again, why is "enough" the keyword. Why not the following......"the O took the game over and won it for us." See my point? When our defense at VT historically since 2001 (on most occasions, not all, but most) does not outright win the game for us..........we are in a ballgame.....almost always. The offense often does not lose the game for us, or the offense sometimes did enough to win, but again........these 2 options are all we have. We have to get to a point where there is a 3rd option and that is......"The O just took the game over and won it outright regardless of the poor Defense."

 

[VT33]

I absolutely agree. I'd like to see our O get the ball first and get aggressive on Offense and try to give the opposition the ball where they're down by seven to begin with or in bad field position. When the other team scores first, I think we get more conservative on O(if that's possible), thinking a turnover will put us in an insurmountable hole. It seems as though football's Offensive patterns have progressed more than the Defense lately and winning close games is harder if you don't have the top recruits in the country on D. Granted, there are some teams that can win a lot with mostly D, but it seems there are less all the time.

 

[hokiemtc]

We held Duke to 24 points in regulation. No question, the D let us down in OT, but again, 24 points scored by an offense in 2015 in regulation is going to get most teams a loss.

I totally agree with this and I posted the same thing a couple of weeks ago. If our offense can hit 28 points in any game, then VT will win a whole heck of a lot more than we lose. It likely still wouldn't be enough to beat the Ohio States and Clemsons on the schedule, but it would end all of this nonsense about losing to Wake Forest, Duke, East Carolina and whatever other mid-pack teams we've have trouble with over the past few years.

The offense needs to hit 28 and the defense needs to hold to 24. When both happens, we win. When only one happens, it's 50-50. When neither happens, we lose. It's an overly simplified representation of the world, but it's also pretty easy to see who didn't pull their weight in any game while using it. The D did enough in regulation yesterday to win, the O came up short.