VT sinks from 84th to 88th in country. D goes up to 39th

[lucustookis]

After the incredible offensive performance in the eyes of a brainwashed or knowledge deficit fan base about what a good O looks like, the VT Os grand total of 360 yards dropped the Total O ranking from 84th to 88th. Incredibly, 360 to us looks like Oregon since we have the usual 300 yds. Fact is....the O performance against State was average. The rushing yards were good and this rounds out the dismal 360 total yds performance.

Defensively, another incredible performance holding State to 270 yds and the D bolted from 46th in the nation to 39th in Total D.

Additionally, u will never see this stat in any article as it takes an incredible mind to come up with these things. So...u heard this first from this post and the stat is.......in the last 2 weeks, Virginia Tech has statistically had the nations number ONE ranked defense by total yardage. But.....the results of that for such a brainwashed fan base that expects a top 5 D every year and with a few fans actually ignorant enough to call for Fosters removal after 4 games...we hear ZERO about the D the last 2 weeks. We are left to only hear a few comments like..."the D is playing a little better" and the sheep have stopped calling for Buds removal, but nothing is heard about our D performing....at least statistically, as the number one ranked D in America in Total Yards allowed the last two weeks.

And last of all, after NC St, the story is mostly about Motley and the improved offense and nothing about the D. Fact is..the O dropped 4 spots nationally and the D moved up 7 spots. This in and if otself is one of the main problems with VT football and it partially explains why Beamer has lasted so long. It comes down to ignorance amongst at least a large enough percentage of the fan base to keep him in place for so long.

 

[hokiemtc]

Total yards is largely the most useless stat in football, save for the TOP aspect of it (for certain teams...some teams don't care about that). Give me 28 points every week and most years that will be good enough with a Bud Foster D.

I don't really care if they only have 30 total yards while getting there, but put up 28 points and I like our chances against almost anyone. I didn't see a problem in the world with the offense last week. Or against ECU, either, for that matter. The offense did enough to win both games, but it was the D that let us down in one of them, not the offense.

 

[mrjolly01]

The offense was good in the second quarter, and for one play in the 4th quarter. Other than that it seemed to me like pretty standard VT offense for most of 3 quarters. But it was nice to see a couple of explosions for a change.

The defense was the story of that game. After looking like they couldn't stop a high school team in the first quarter, Bud's guys had their best showing of the season, IMO. For the last 3 quarters they looked like the old bend don't break Bud defense of old. I really liked some of the newcomers too, i.e. Terrell Edmunds and Mook Reynolds had some nice plays, and Facyson looked like his old true freshman self again.

But I'm still not ready to drink any Kool-Aid over this team.

 

[BigDaddyHokie]

Ditto Jolly. Also liked seeing Adonis Alexander play so well at such a tender age. He's our next Cam Chancellor.

 

[lucustookis]

Total yards is largely the most useless stat in football, save for the TOP aspect of it (for certain teams...some teams don't care about that). Give me 28 points every week and most years that will be good enough with a Bud Foster D.

I don't really care if they only have 30 total yards while getting there, but put up 28 points and I like our chances against almost anyone. I didn't see a problem in the world with the offense last week. Or against ECU, either, for that matter. .

I refer you back to my post. You prove my point when you wrote, "Give me 28 points every week and most years that will be good enough with a Bud Foster D." This statement exactly proves my point about the insane expectations and free pass for the O. Additionally, total yards and total points do correlate on most occasions and total yards tells the tale about an offenses ability to go down the field and score when it needs to (like ECU late in game). It's a solid stat, but of course, for the some in the masses at VT, it is of course hated because our O always seems poor in this category, so the usual default is to downplay the statistic. Your last statement that is full of hogwash is "The offense did enough to win both games, but it was the D that let us down in one of them, not the offense." Again, this proves my point. Ever notice if the O struggles and the D steps up (like 9/10ths of VT football the last 15 years) then we win as a "team." If the D struggles, then the usual default is a separation of the O and D and "team" is no longer in the equation. For example, your statement, "the O did enough to win." Fact is...the O DID NOT do enough to win. The O was horrible at ECU. Don't believe it. See SMU and BYU who played far better against their defense than us. Sometimes, well.....many times in the year of 2015 and this era, 28 points is not enough to win. You are living in 1995. Those days are over. P.S. Your final statement, "I didn't see a problem in the world with the offense last week." My God man, it actually scares me to read this and wonder what on earth is going on upstairs in your squash to actually go through the motions of

1. Watching the game with eyes open
2. Relaying some thought or message from the eyes to the brain (cerebral cortex)
3. Then reaching the conclusion back from the cerebral cortex to form speech in the form of, "not
seeing a problem in the world with the offense."

Something is wrong in steps 1, 2, 3, or all of them, or just 2 of them, but something is wrong my friend. For non VT fans reading this thread, here is your example of why Frank Beamer has managed to stay so long. There are thousands of fans that have this view of VT football.

 

[hokiemtc]

I'm not sure what you're expecting here. To win every game 80-0? If that's the case, then yes, our offense is not good enough to do that.

The disconnect in your logic is that you should put up Oregon numbers or you're underachieving on offense, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant and giving a free pass to the offense. The reality is we don't need Oregon numbers to win football games because, unlike Oregon (or TCU or Oklahoma State or Texas Tech, etc), we actually play defense.

If the only end goal was to bring the trophy case back out of mothballs, then we'll certainly need more offense than anything we've shown to date to do that. But there's no aspect of this program that is anywhere close to being title quality these days, so in the meantime, what we really need is 28 points every week to win most of our games. If the next coach can recruit and has any coaching sense and wants to build a title team, then he definitely should do something entirely different on offense. But since the next coach isn't on the sidelines yet, then what we really need is 28 points every week until the situation changes. Which, I have bad news for you, won't be anytime soon.

 

[VT/UK Rondo]

Lucus do you really expect Beamer to change his philosophy on how to win football games this late in his career? He doesnt know any other way of doing things. Your post about the offense could be made most of the previous seasons and most likely next season as well.
Its just not going to happen under Beamer and be honest, with what youve seen from his offensive staff and playcalling do you really want to see this team try to get into a offensive footrace with teams?
Its not that fans dont want more offense or think we need more offense, its just that after 2-3 decades they have just come to accept that until Beamer retires, its going to be "the offense helps the defense win". Its irritating as hell but it is what it is.

 

[swmrappell]

Again I think we can count on Lucas to make his arguments. I just wish Lucas, that you would do it without bashing the entire VT fan base. I think that most agree with you in theory. Just that many understand the realities of life under Beamer and accept that is the way it will be as long as Beamer is head coach. No amount of fan chatter will change that. The only way it will change under Beamer if it is forced upon him due to losses on the field. You have a losing season this year and I can pretty much guarantee you change. I agree with most that Beamer will coach through the 2016 season. If VT falters that year then I see Beamer leaving. If VT does well then Beamer may stay another year. Hard to tell.

What I am hoping is that we have a decent year in 2016 with a lot of exposure from the race at Bristol. Then make an "out of the ball park replacement hire announcement" to keep excitement going for the team with Beamer retiring on a good note at the end of 2016. That would be my dream scenario. I hope Beamer realizes he has gone beyond his prime and goes out on a good note. I'd hate to see him forced out like Bobby Bowden.

 

[pahokie77]

Again I think we can count on Lucas to make his arguments. I just wish Lucas, that you would do it without bashing the entire VT fan base. I think that most agree with you in theory. Just that many understand the realities of life under Beamer and accept that is the way it will be as long as Beamer is head coach. No amount of fan chatter will change that. The only way it will change under Beamer if it is forced upon him due to losses on the field. You have a losing season this year and I can pretty much guarantee you change. I agree with most that Beamer will coach through the 2016 season. If VT falters that year then I see Beamer leaving. If VT does well then Beamer may stay another year. Hard to tell.

What I am hoping is that we have a decent year in 2016 with a lot of exposure from the race at Bristol. Then make an "out of the ball park replacement hire announcement" to keep excitement going for the team with Beamer retiring on a good note at the end of 2016. That would be my dream scenario. I hope Beamer realizes he has gone beyond his prime and goes out on a good note. I'd hate to see him forced out like Bobby Bowden.

I hear that Randy Edsall is looking for a job!

 

[vtpmt81]

I'm not sure what you're expecting here. To win every game 80-0? If that's the case, then yes, our offense is not good enough to do that.

The disconnect in your logic is that you should put up Oregon numbers or you're underachieving on offense, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant and giving a free pass to the offense. The reality is we don't need Oregon numbers to win football games because, unlike Oregon (or TCU or Oklahoma State or Texas Tech, etc), we actually play defense.

If the only end goal was to bring the trophy case back out of mothballs, then we'll certainly need more offense than anything we've shown to date to do that. But there's no aspect of this program that is anywhere close to being title quality these days, so in the meantime, what we really need is 28 points every week to win most of our games. If the next coach can recruit and has any coaching sense and wants to build a title team, then he definitely should do something entirely different on offense. But since the next coach isn't on the sidelines yet, then what we really need is 28 points every week until the situation changes. Which, I have bad news for you, won't be anytime soon.

In a 12 game season - most teams have 4 games where they play better than their average on defense, 4 games where the play to their average, and 4 games where they play below their average. VT's defense has been very good for many years now so VT's 'average' is good. However, that leaves at least 4 games a year where VT's defense won't be good enough to win if they are play a good team (let's leave out elite teams where you need an excellent effort to win).

Looking at the offense - this is a major issue. The last two years we have had a sub-100 ranked offense. This year we are 88th and we have yet to play Duke and Boston College - teams with really good defenses. Take away the Purdue and Furman games - VT's offense has struggled for long periods of time in all of our games. Actually - VT's offense was bad in the first half of the Furman game as well. Nothing has changed except for the name of the coordinator. The offense is still crap compared to most schools. The difference is that the defense is just above average due to recruiting misses instead of elite and that is why we are mediocre.

 

[leeanderthal]

Interesting read here guys. we play the U this week-end. They were after the FSU QB quite a bit Saturday. I'm not certain as to how good FSU's O line is but they have to be as good as ours.
This game will tell us more than anything how well we are doing as a team. They have a lot more talent than NCS on both sides of the ball. I look for a very tough game.

 

[hokiemtc]

Everyone keeps posting total yardage stats like they are supposed to mean something. They don't.

The only stat that matters is scoring offense, and thru 6 games, VT is averaging scoring 31.0 pts/game this year, which is good enough to be around 50th in the country, and better than any other year for us since 2010. And unlike in some other years, VT's offense actually isn't getting much help from the defense this season in the scoring department. Someone mentioned Furman and Purdue, but last year's offense faced Bill&Mary and Western Michigan in the 1st 6 games. 2013 had Western Carolina on the schedule. 2012 had Austin Peay and Bowling Green on the schedule. 2011 had Appalachian State and Arkansas State on the schedule. 2010 had JMU and Central Michigan on the schedule. Despite the continuous supply of weak opponents, none of those other offenses since 2010 scored 51 points in a game like this year's offense did.

Even in their 3 losses, VT has still scored an average of 21.6 pts/game, which is still better than any other offense since 2010 (save for 2012).

I understand that you can find an irrelevant stat to support just about any argument you could ever possibly make, but I swear some of you people wouldn't recognize the truth if you gave you a lap dance.

 

[SunnyBeachWave]

Despite the continuous supply of weak opponents, none of those other offenses since 2010 scored 51 points in a game like this year's offense did.

Not too shabby for a backup qb.

 

[1bburgfan]

Not too shabby for a backup qb.

and 1 leg and not being from the 757

 

[lucustookis]

Everyone keeps posting total yardage stats like they are supposed to mean something. They don't.

The only stat that matters is scoring offense, and thru 6 games, VT is averaging scoring 31.0 pts/game this year, which is good enough to be around 50th in the country.

I really and truly believe you are clueless. I am not attacking you or being sarcastic, I just truly believe you do not know what you are talking about (and that is ok, I guess). I guarantee that you actually do not know what scoring offense is or how it's computed. I truly believe that. Of course, you will look it up and your next post will reflect that you know what you are talking about with scoring O, but fact is....you truly don't know what the stat means. Anyway, scoring offense is somewhat of a misnomer. It's one of the most confusing stats in football (by name) for those who.....well....do not know what they are talking about. Scoring offense is AS EQUAL of a defense or special teams statistic as it is offense. Scoring offense means total points scored. Of course, a great D putting an offense in short field situations matters. A pick 6 matters. A great special teams play matters. These all go into scoring offense. You could call scoring offense "scoring special teams" and it has the same effect in that....it is total points scored. Scoring Defense on the other hand accurately reflects what it means and of course, it is looking strictly at the defense. Scoring O is literally 33.3333% of the work of an offense. Therefore, I love the scenario like with Boise State and so many times at VT over the last 14 years, or even just going back recently to ECU with the following situation........

1 minute left in the game, VT needs a TD to win and a FG will not win it or tie it and we have the ball lets say at our own 20 or 30. At this point...at this moment....are you thinking to yourself....."we are fine because even though our Total O ranks 100, we will score because our "scoring O ranks 50th"? As you can see (well....not you personally hokieemtc because you don't see things well) but as the overwhelming majority of the population can see, your total O ranking matters here. Why? because at this point, there is no help from the D or Foster. It's not about a punt block or great special teams play. It's about the Offense going 80 yards and YOU and I know that in the last 13 or so years at VT when we get into this situation, we LOSE 9 out of 10 times. But hey......after the game is over in which we lose something like 20-14, we can bost about our "50th ranked" scoring offense which is overwhelmingly due to the play of the defense. Fact is...our scoring O is 50th because of the take-aways of our D, and the short fields of which our D gives our struggling offense, and the pick 6's over the years. Another telling statistic that overwhelmingly correlates with Total Offense is Yards per play. Their are occasional exceptions, but by in large, you will find that Total Offense and Yards Per Play go hand in hand. At VT, it's been different though.......meaning....our Total O over the Years (which has been dismal) has actually ranked BETTER than our Yards Per Play and this is telling about how bad an offense is. Why? Because A Total O ranking that is better than a Total Yards Per Play ranking suggests your defense is doing the "work." Meaning....your D is giving the offense chance after chance to move the ball and is giving the O more possessions which gives the Total O, but the Yards Per Play ranking worse than the Total O Ranking means that even though the O is getting chances, it is still not moving the ball.

Final Point and why VT's "scoring offense" ranks 30 points better than the Total Offense (which is right on par with us historically the last 14 years. This year, VT is tied for 12th in the nation in defensive TDs. We are tied for 15th in the nation in fumbles recovered. Turnovers gained, we are tied for 13th in the nation defensively. Blocked kicks and punts, tied for 13th in the nation. Kickoffs returns, tied for 26th in the nation. All of these contribute to "scoring offense" and again.....when we isolate the work of the offense, we get a ranking of 88th in the America with our Total O.

 

[lucustookis]

Again I think we can count on Lucas to make his arguments. I just wish Lucas, that you would do it without bashing the entire VT fan base.".

Swmrappell, let me paste some of my post so you can reconsider your statement............I wrote.........."It comes down to ignorance amongst at least a large enough percentage of the fan base to keep him in place for so long."

What are the key words in the statement above that makes your claim about me bashing "the entire VT fan base" inaccurate? The key words are......."a large enough percentage of the fan base." <----Certainly, you see the difference in my statement, and certainly you can quantify the difference? My point is.......and you know this......I did not "bash the entire VT fan base." Read my post before coming up with an emotional response. My statement implies that there are enough fans in the VT fan-base that believe and think a certain way that has fostered an environment which has allowed Coach Beamer to stay for so long. That may be only 5% or it may be 50% or it may be 75%. I don't know what the percentage is other than....it certainly is not the entire fan-base, but I know there are enough to make a difference. I stand by this statement. It's accurate and on the money.

 

[RB4]

I love football and I watch it all day on Saturday and Sunday. I have also been a VT fan for a long time. I know D is our bread and butter and it is definitely the best part of our team but I think it is still a somewhat sloppy group,(even Bud is very upset with this group) but they are improving. OSU made us look silly on D. ECU exposed us, and Pitt lined up and pushed us like a JV team. We do not have the talent that we typically do, and we also do not play the level of competition either. IDC what the numbers say as long as the D keeps improving im happy.

 

[Hampton Roads 6]

Our D plays well enough to win most games. It's the lack of offense that kills us in 99% of all defeats.

 

[swmrappell]

Swmrappell, let me paste some of my post so you can reconsider your statement............I wrote.........."It comes down to ignorance amongst at least a large enough percentage of the fan base to keep him in place for so long."

What are the key words in the statement above that makes your claim about me bashing "the entire VT fan base" inaccurate? The key words are......."a large enough percentage of the fan base." <----Certainly, you see the difference in my statement, and certainly you can quantify the difference? My point is.......and you know this......I did not "bash the entire VT fan base." Read my post before coming up with an emotional response. My statement implies that there are enough fans in the VT fan-base that believe and think a certain way that has fostered an environment which has allowed Coach Beamer to stay for so long. That may be only 5% or it may be 50% or it may be 75%. I don't know what the percentage is other than....it certainly is not the entire fan-base, but I know there are enough to make a difference. I stand by this statement. It's accurate and on the money.

"After the incredible offensive performance in the eyes of a brainwashed or knowledge deficit fan base about what a good O looks like" this is quote from your first post Lucas. Now I don't see anything about percentages here. Do you? And since you didn't quantify this, most would assume you are talking about all or most of the fan base. Lucas - I am normally pretty accurate in what I write and say and it will be a rare instance when you find me incorrect. I check my facts first. So I stand by my original statement.

 

[swmrappell]

I disagree with Lucas's method of delivery but the content I get. I would feel a lot more comfortable if our scoring offense came with yards per game or yards per down. What I am not comfortable with is the ability of our team to march the ball the length of the field. You can play the ball position game all you want but sometimes you have to march the ball down the field and score. For that - yards per game and/or yards per down statistically shows that ability better than scoring offense. Another stat I think is important is red zone scoring. If you can march the ball up and down the field all day long but can't score in the red zone then yards per game doesn't really mean much.

So what I have done here is agreed with both Lucas and HokieMTC. You are both correct at the same time. Just on different aspects of the game.

 

[Hampton Roads 6]

When offense has ball, it should want to score a Touchdown. For several years we have been too conservative. Some seem happy with gaining a few yards on the ground. a yard or 2 here and there with a short pass. Then punt or attempt a field goal.
I wish rules could be changed to prevent teams from playing 1950s high school ball.

 

[hokiemtc]

I would feel a lot more comfortable if our scoring offense came with yards per game or yards per down. What I am not comfortable with is the ability of our team to march the ball the length of the field. You can play the ball position game all you want but sometimes you have to march the ball down the field and score. For that - yards per game and/or yards per down statistically shows that ability better than scoring offense.

I agree with your first sentence totally, and one more parting thought to add to it. One of the Logan offenses (2011 or 2012) ranked pretty highly in yards/game (in the 30s, maybe?), but they were dead last in the country in red zone efficiency so we never got any points to show for all of those great drives, and therefore lost a ton of games as a result. That offense could move the ball better than most of the country could between the 20s...but all of their offensive output ended up being irrelevant since they couldn't score any points.

I agree with swmrappell in that ideally, you'd like to have an offense that could be in the 30s in both points AND in yards...but if you can only have one or the other, then you better take those points...because ultimately yards don't count for anything except a bunch of losses.

 

[lucustookis]

I agree with your first sentence totally, and one more parting thought to add to it. One of the Logan offenses (2011 or 2012) ranked pretty highly in yards/game (in the 30s, maybe?), but they were dead last in the country in red zone efficiency so we never got any points to show for all of those great drives, and therefore lost a ton of games as a result. That offense could move the ball better than most of the country could between the 20s...but all of their offensive output ended up being irrelevant since they couldn't score any points.

I agree with swmrappell in that ideally, you'd like to have an offense that could be in the 30s in both points AND in yards...but if you can only have one or the other, then you better take those points...because ultimately yards don't count for anything except a bunch of losses.

Somewhat flawed is your memory.
1. 2011- Total O ranked 65th. I know....I get it....to us, that is like Oregon or top 10, but 65th in yards per game and 59th in yards per play. Bottom line.....stop here...no need to look further.....right off the bat, this tells you the ability of that offense to move the ball between the 20's. It was not good.
2. 2012- Total O ranked 96th. Yards per play was 81st. Again....stop here...no need to look further...a horrific offenes, period.
3. Dude, are you serious about a total O ranked in the "30's"? LOL. The highest ranked offense since Stinespring took over was 2003 in which we ranked 38th. We have not had one offense since then break the top 40 and only 2 since then have cracked the top 50 and only 2 cracked the top 70. Think about that for a minute. It's mind boggling.
4. Of course people want to "take the points." The thing is...."taking those points" does not mean your offense is good. At VT, it has meant our defense is doing the work and giving us the scoring offense ranking (which again, is as much of a Defense and Special Teams State as an O stat).
5. Finally, you are WRONG on yards per game, so you may want to take back your statement about "ultimately yards don't count for anything except a bunch of losses." Ummmm, this is a false statement. Since 1990, only 2 teams in the country that won a nation title have ranked outside of the top 30 in Total Offense (yards per game) There have been 11 teams since 1990 that ranked outside of the top 30 in Scoring Offense (total points scored) and won national titles.

I have no problem with points scored, but it's important to know exactly what scoring offense is. It is total points scored and does NOT measure the ability of an offense to go up and down the field or score when we need it to. It is as much a defensive stat as an O stat. Total Offense or Total Yards Per Play is the stat that most accurately describes your offenses ability to move the football and score when we need it to (a last minute drive down 4 with 1 minute left and we have the ball at our own 20).

 

[VT/UK Rondo]

If the coaches strategy is to use special teams and defense to win games and that is where his emphasis is, yet the opponent drives the field and scores for the late win how can the defense not be to blame despite what the stat lines say?

 

[lucustookis]

If the coaches strategy is to use special teams and defense to win games and that is where his emphasis is, yet the opponent drives the field and scores for the late win how can the defense not be to blame despite what the stat lines say?

Your point is? I am not sure what you are asking or how it relates to the thread. One poster attempted to argue that scoring offense was the best stat to identify how "good" an offense is. Of course, the poster did not actually know what went in to scoring offense and did not understand that it includes total points scored (O, D, and Special Teams). Now, with that in mind regarding what the thread was about....I guess I will answer or attempt to answer your question, yet I am not sure what you are asking or where you are going with it.

If the coaches strategy is to use D and ST to win games, then I am implying he "does not" want to include the offense? If so, he should be fired. Any reasonable and mentally stable coach would want ALL 3 to win games, correct? Common sense would tell us that. If your scenario is correct and you ask how the defense can not be possibly at fault because it gave up a late TD regardless of the stat line? Well, the answer is......the stat line is not a "regardless" fact. For example, if the D gave up 130 yards the entire game and the D's team led 7 to 3 with 1 minute left in the game and the opponent went 90 yards down the field for a TD and won 10-7, do you still blame the D, assuming it gave up 130 yards and the offense on the losing team had 110 or so yards? I mean......do you truly feel the D is at fault for this loss and the stat line here is a "regardless"?

Equally important, do you see a different in proportion? Meaning, do you feel the offense and defense on the losing team are "the same." Is there a gap? Does one worry us more than the other? Or....are they the same?

 

[HeaksManley]

I haven't read anything lucus has posted in this thread because he's still on ignore, but I'm guessing it's mostly invective-laced nonsense toward fellow Hokies with hints of neurotic obsession of Stinespring scattered about, and his part played in the continued decline of our program. Probably some back-peddling, personal attacks and some revised history to go with the narrative he keeps pushing like a street peddler in some middle east bazaar.

Did I miss anything?

 

[VT/UK Rondo]

What good does it do to hold an opponents offense to 130 yrds on the game If you cant hold them off to secure the win? Off the top of my head I give you the GT game last year. We had over 400 yrds of offense yet when we leaned on the defense to secure the win, they allowed the yellowjackets to go the length of the field and ultimately win the game.

In this case do you blame the offense for not scoring more points, yrds or whatever....or do you hold the defense accountable for not makiing a defensive stop when it mattered most?

My point is, your bitchin about stats that I doubt even our coaching staff understand or even care about because that isnt and never has been their priority in winning football games.

 

[swmrappell]

Perhaps it is not the coach's priority to have a high-scoring offense win games. However, I doubt seriously that the coach tells the offense to "stand down - don't score - because I want the defense to win the game". So then even though you state it is the coach's game plan to play ball position with defense and special teams - still the offense must produce and be held accountable. If you look at our defensive stats - you will notice that quite often we hold opposing teams to lower points and yardage than the opposing team's average. The opposite can be said for our offense. Often our offense improves the defensive ratings of our opponents because they hold our offense to lower yards and points than their average. Kind of hard to hold us below our offensive average because it is already so low.

 

[VT/UK Rondo]

Perhaps it is not the coach's priority to have a high-scoring offense win games. However, I doubt seriously that the coach tells the offense to "stand down - don't score - because I want the defense to win the game". So then even though you state it is the coach's game plan to play ball position with defense and special teams - still the offense must produce and be held accountable. If you look at our defensive stats - you will notice that quite often we hold opposing teams to lower points and yardage than the opposing team's average. The opposite can be said for our offense. Often our offense improves the defensive ratings of our opponents because they hold our offense to lower yards and points than their average. Kind of hard to hold us below our offensive average because it is already so low.

Cant argue with none of that although sometimes I wonder. We do some strange shit on offense (going away from whats working, running the same unproductive play or player, etc..)

 

[lucustookis]

What good does it do to hold an opponents offense to 130 yrds on the game If you cant hold them off to secure the win? .

Easy answer and common sense tells us...if you hold the opponent to 130 yds, then what is usually happening? The opponent isn't getting first downs. The opponent is likely having tons of 3 and outs. What is the end results of not moving the ball, not getting first downs, and getting several 3 and outs? The result is common sense........the other team's offense gets the ball. This means.....the offense has had chance after chance after chance after chance to put the game away. We should not be in a situation in which our D has held someone to under 300 yds for a game, and the game is coming down to one final drive in which our D needs a stop or we lose. Is the game really lost (by the defense) if that team converts on the final drive? Of course not. The game was lost in the first 58 minutes of the game in which our Offense did not put us ahead by 10-14 points making a final drive meaningless.

 

[lucustookis]

I haven't read anything lucus has posted in this thread because he's still on ignore, but I'm guessing it's mostly invective-laced nonsense toward fellow Hokies with hints of neurotic obsession of Stinespring scattered about, and his part played in the continued decline of our program. Probably some back-peddling, personal attacks and some revised history to go with the narrative he keeps pushing like a street peddler in some middle east bazaar.

That's the usual Heaks. Offers nothing, and apparently, as he gets older, even goes more personal and has little insight, only attacks. Additionally, since I have known Heaks on this board going back over 8 years, he is always a responder, "the led", not a leader, does not take a chance or bring up a topic, only sets in the shadows and fires easy shots. Those characteristics are cowardly in nature. I am not calling Heaks a coward, but his characteristics and displays of poor character such as his recent post suggest coward-like behavior. Heaks is still holding onto the Stiney years as Heaks fought kicking and screaming to keep him-in support of him, and only until it was announced ole Stiney was gone, Heaks finally came around with his revisionist history and stated, "he wanted a change anyway." That's Heak in a nutshell. Don't believe it? Who is the VERY FIRST POSTER in this thread to bring up the word Stinespring? Guess who? It's Heaks, not me. But you know me.....I gladly respond. Heaks, I suggest more exercise and this may help clear some of the cholesterol opening up some oxygen delivery to that thick squash of yours. I will repeat to you Heaks for probably the 50th time on this board over the years.....He's gone. We have a new OC. Let it go. It's done. Get over it. Move on. And most important.....no need to attack or hate those that wanted the change such as myself.

 

[swmrappell]

OK - so getting off of the personal topic . . . .How long do we give the new OC? (well not so new anymore). How long should we give him to improve the offense? Is he capable of bringing the Hokie offense into the 21st century? Is Beamer the holdup on Loeffler branding a strong offense? What will it take to get a real offense here at Virginia Tech?

 

[RB4]

It will take recruits. ELITE recruits as well as belief in the system. As long as we have frank we will not be an Elite offense his whole game is slow pace bleed the clock and limit the other teams possessions. This use to work before teams lined up and score in 2 minutes and then force teams like us to speed up and play into their hands. We need a good balance. I think that is why FSU is so good they can play both styles. They can speed up effectively but they can also line up in I and pound the D and bleed the clock. They also have the talent to do w/e they want. It will take a complete mindset change by the man up top before we get to that point. TCU was VT made over years ago. Same pro style slow the game down O, and the attack 4-2-3 Defense that Bud, and Gary Patterson become famous for. But Coach GP wanted to start puting points on the board and spread it out. but this also made them worse on D.. .

 

[Hokie81]

Defense has been a huge disappointment this year, how long has it been since VT shutout anyone?

 

[Salemite]

After the incredible offensive performance in the eyes of a brainwashed or knowledge deficit fan base about what a good O looks like, the VT Os grand total of 360 yards dropped the Total O ranking from 84th to 88th. Incredibly, 360 to us looks like Oregon since we have the usual 300 yds. Fact is....the O performance against State was average. The rushing yards were good and this rounds out the dismal 360 total yds performance.

Defensively, another incredible performance holding State to 270 yds and the D bolted from 46th in the nation to 39th in Total D.

Additionally, u will never see this stat in any article as it takes an incredible mind to come up with these things. So...u heard this first from this post and the stat is.......in the last 2 weeks, Virginia Tech has statistically had the nations number ONE ranked defense by total yardage. But.....the results of that for such a brainwashed fan base that expects a top 5 D every year and with a few fans actually ignorant enough to call for Fosters removal after 4 games...we hear ZERO about the D the last 2 weeks. We are left to only hear a few comments like..."the D is playing a little better" and the sheep have stopped calling for Buds removal, but nothing is heard about our D performing....at least statistically, as the number one ranked D in America in Total Yards allowed the last two weeks.

And last of all, after NC St, the story is mostly about Motley and the improved offense and nothing about the D. Fact is..the O dropped 4 spots nationally and the D moved up 7 spots. This in and if otself is one of the main problems with VT football and it partially explains why Beamer has lasted so long. It comes down to ignorance amongst at least a large enough percentage of the fan base to keep him in place for so long.

Our QB is still out. Speaking of ignorance... take look at who Pitt and NCSU played before us. Not like they were huge tests for our D.

 

[Salemite]

It will take recruits. ELITE recruits as well as belief in the system. As long as we have frank we will not be an Elite offense his whole game is slow pace bleed the clock and limit the other teams possessions. This use to work before teams lined up and score in 2 minutes and then force teams like us to speed up and play into their hands. We need a good balance. I think that is why FSU is so good they can play both styles. They can speed up effectively but they can also line up in I and pound the D and bleed the clock. They also have the talent to do w/e they want. It will take a complete mindset change by the man up top before we get to that point. TCU was VT made over years ago. Same pro style slow the game down O, and the attack 4-2-3 Defense that Bud, and Gary Patterson become famous for. But Coach GP wanted to start puting points on the board and spread it out. but this also made them worse on D.. .

Agree about recruiting.
But imo our system is not a problem. Saban holds the same O philosophy as Frank.
BAMA runs a lot -- in order to play action deep. That's Frank's football.
Pound the rock until the DBs have to come up to help. Then cya.

 

[SunnyBeachWave]

Agree about recruiting.
But imo our system is not a problem. Saban holds the same O philosophy as Frank.
BAMA runs a lot -- in order to play action deep. That's Frank's football.
Pound the rock until the DBs have to come up to help. Then cya.

Pound the rock is right. But if you're trying to pound the rock with a concrete hammer like we've been doing the past several years in the run game because of o line deficiencies, especially when we play a really good team, it't moot.

 

[Salemite]

Agree