After an inconsistent year, Hokies still looking for offensive answers heading into Russell Athletic Bowl
Virginia Tech’s offseason was filled with hope. Tweaks to the offense, new formations and a fast-paced tempo were supposed to bring the Hokies’ offense up to speed with the rest of the ACC and play to the team’s strengths.
Instead, the Hokies’ offense took a major step back, plagued by inconsistency, the lack of a dependable running game and quarterback Logan Thomas‘ uneven play.
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.
Virginia Tech finished the season ranked 71st nationally in total offense (391.8 ypg) and 78th in scoring offense (26.1 ppg), leaving many on the outside and within the program unsatisfied.
“We haven’t played as well as we expected to play this year. So to be satisfied? No,” said oft-criticized offensive coordinator Bryan Stinespring, who some are calling to be removed from his position, although head coach Frank Beamer has been mum on any potential changes. “I think there are some things we’ve done well. I like the direction that we’re going in what we’re doing offensively. Now the job and now the emphasis is doing it better.”
The Hokies added more misdirection in the offseason, put in a Pistol formation that was supposed to play to Thomas’ strengths and introduced some hurry-up elements, all to make the offense more diverse.
But Tech took a step back offensively across the board. Part of that is due to the loss of running back David Wilson, receivers Jarrett Boykin and Danny Coale and four senior offensive linemen. But part of it was from the execution — or lack thereof consistently — from their replacements.
That was especially true of the running game, a bedrock of Virginia Tech’s offense for years. From 2008-2011, the Hokies never finished below 35th nationally in rushing offense, averaging at a minimum 174.3 yards per game and one season topping the 200-yard mark. This season, Tech ranked 64th nationally, with a 157.8-yard average that near dipped to the 2007 level.
“You’d like to have those guys that can step up and be difference-makers,” Stinespring said. “Like J.C., we’ve got young guys. Michael has been set back some with some injuries. It’s pushed back his development a little bit. Tony has shown his moments, but we’ve just got to have a guy in that backfield that is going to be productive week-in and week-out. But running the ball is like playing run defense. It’s team oriented. It’s all 11.”
That includes the blocking. The offensive line, which had its share of injuries on the interior, didn’t pave the way for its runners with any consistency this season. In addition to losing the strong perimeter blocking of Boykin and Coale, Tech lost D.J. Coles, the team’s best blocking receiver, to a knee injury.
“I really think it’s a combination,” head coach Frank Beamer said. “I don’t think you can say, ‘OK, that’s the problem, that’s the issue.’
“No. 1, I thought our effort overall was good. But I think at times we weren’t consistent blocking and at times we weren’t consistent in running the football. All the way through, we wanted to get it to like two guys, and get them the work in practice and be more consistent on Saturday. But we just couldn’t separate. I think we’re closer to that now, where we are right now going into the bowl game.”
The team’s offensive struggles have had the Hokies’ coaches paring back what they intend to do in the Russell Athletic Bowl against Rutgers. They hope that helps the team be more consistent in what it does run.
“We’re going to be very conscious of what we put into the game plan,” Stinespring said. “It’s not so much how much we put into the game plan, but what we can execute in the game plan. So I think we’ll be very conscientious of what goes into this game plan.
“We’re not going to have a call sheet loaded up just to say that we can lead you to a toolbox and pull something out. Whatever we’re pulling out to call and play, we need to do it well.”
The Hokies over the years …
Total offense (national rank)
- 2012: 391.8 ypg (71st)
- 2011: 413.0 ypg (35th)
- 2010: 402.3 ypg (41st)
- 2009: 392.1 ypg (50th)
- 2008: 303.4 ypg (103rd)
Rushing offense (national rank)
- 2012: 157.8 ypg (64th)
- 2011: 186.9 ypg (28th)
- 2010: 198.7 ypg (23rd)
- 2009: 208.2 ypg (14th)
- 2008: 174.4 ypg (35th)
Passing offense (national rank)
- 2012: 234.1 ypg (61st)
- 2011: 226.1 ypg (66th)
- 2010: 203.6 ypg (72nd)
- 2009: 183.9 ypg (95th)
- 2008: 129.1 ypg (111th)
Scoring offense (national rank)
- 2012: 26.1 ppg (78th)
- 2011: 27.9 ppg (57th)
- 2010: 33.9 ppg (21st)
- 2009: 31.9 ppg (24th)
- 2008: 22.1 ppg (90th)
December 17, 2012 - 11:33 AM
It has been going on now for far too many years, and I, for one, am weary of the excuses. Unless there are significant changes in the offensive coaching staff, particularly the OC, there will not be meaningful improvement, and we discouraged fans, contributors, and faithful season ticket holders will lose more and more interest.
Does the 78th ranking on the offenses scoring include special teams and defensive scores?
Kudos to A.M. for finally taking off the rose colored glasses.
The scoring average does include defensive/special teams TDs. But so do past year’s numbers.
VT only had the Jarrett punt return, the Knowles kick return and the Tyler safety as non-offensive points this year, though, so that’s pretty negligible.
This is a chance for them to right the ship and show the nation that they belong in the top 5.
Would it be possible to list, beside each year’s ranking, the strength of schedule also? This might prove to be particularly illuminating….Thanks!
What a bunch of bunk. This offensive coaching staff has underperformed way too long. It boils down to performancee. Recruit top players, practice, practice, and then practice some more, so that they can execute plays in their sleep. Tired of excuses. Get the new coaches on board fast.
I don’t really follow that logic AB. Pick sixes should then count as a deduction for offensive points. And what about the times the table was set with a short field for the VT offense and they only got a FG?
How was VT’s redzone offense ranked and TD’s in red zone offense ranked?
Now Beamer says the emphasis is on doing it better. “Now the job and now the emphasis is doing it better.” The problem is the “it”. The “it” is not there and never been under Stinespring, and is now exacerbated by having some offense coaches that are not up to BCS standards.
Red zone efficiency from the NCAA’s site
2012: 87.0% (24th). 34 trips, 21 TDs, 13 FGs
2011: 75.0% (103rd). 70 trips, 35 TDs, 17 FGs
2010: 90.0% (T-5th). 62 trips, 40 TDs, 16 FGs
2009: 89.0% (T-16th). 53 trips, 32 TDs, 15 FGs
2008: 74.0% (T-99th). 58 trips, 27 TDs, 16 FGs.
Defensive red zone efficiency
2012: 80.0% (T-49th). 28 TDs, 4FGs, 32 trips.
2011: 70.0% (5th). 21 TDs, 7 FGs, 40 trips.
2010: 76.0% (T-22nd). 24 TDs, 7 FGs, 41 trips.
2009: 76.0% (T-19th). 15 TDs, 17 FGs, 42 trips.
2008: 82.0% (T-61st). 17 TDs, 10 FGs, 33 trips.
As for special teams and defensive scores, the NCAA tracks those as offensive scores since the moment the ball changes possession that team becomes the offense. There is no separate ranking for kicks and punts blocked then returned for TDs, safetys scored, FGs, kick-off and punts returned for TD, and turnovers returned for TDs.
It’s interesting to me that people continue to harp on the performance of the skill position players (RBs, WRs, & QB) when the spotlight should be squarly on the lack of talent and player development in the trenches (OL & DL). The article touched on it lightly (loss of 4 seniors), but I think it needs a lot more weight and consideration. If you put LT behind UNC’s line (which has much better talent), I guarentee his numbers don’t dip to what they did behind the VT line this year. Additionally, on defense, we have the same problem. VT just doesn’t reel in the talented recruits, and even lose some out of our own backyard that should be auto-selects to VT. Put some serious studs in the trenches FIRST, and you’ll see vast improvement in the skill positions.
Also, Bob, while the individual touchdowns are recorded (rushing and passing each separately), the NCAA does not rank those and their site has no way to sort the TDs to rank them. And, no offense, I’m not searching through 600 teams worth of data (120*5 years) to get this info.
Andy,
This blog is just stating the obvious that you and other ppl have posted for the entire season ad nausea. Did you have no other material? I don’t see the value this post adds to anything — which is a shame because I think your other blogs for the most part are good.
Some typos on my part, but because I got wires crossed in reading their poorly designed site.
Corrections:
2012 offense – 39 trips.
2012 defense – 40 trips.
2011 offense – 74%.
Rest is accurate.
I would like to see Coach Beamer try and get Coach Tom O’brien to come to Tech for a year or two to help win a possible championship. Then let Coach O’brien move to another coaching job. I totally agree Tech should recruit bigger and more athletically interior lineman.
well let’s just go and tell Rutgers early on that we’ve dumbed down our offense. That ought to give their defensive coordinator the opportunity to look at what we executed well and what keys to look for. I’m sure their nationally ranked defense will add some wrinkles for our challenged OL.
Because it was asked, the NCAA’s “strength of schedule” for the last 5 years.
2012: 38th (includes bowl game opponent, can go up or down based on bowl results)
2011: 24th
2010: 41st
2009: 12th
2008: 18th
That should also put an end to some of the cupcake arguments, too. Three of the last five years VT has played a top-25 strength of schedule according to the NCAA. Four of those five the schedule has been top 1/3rd, and just outside for the 5th.
Interesting article on Rich McGeorge today, that he wanted to play at Tech and was offered but when he showed hesitancy because he also wanted to play basketball the offer was withdrawn. I know of another player during that era who wanted to play at Tech, contacted the staff and everything but was never offered, he became an all SEC lineman. Since that was the same staff that Beamer played for I wonder if that recruiting philosophy rubbed off on him. Only approach the high school players you think you have a good chance of getting and then if they hesitate back off. That philosophy would eliminate getting many of the top notch players.
Changes are coming after the bowl game. Beamer finally realizes he is never going to win anything with this staff!!!
Since someone is bound to ask, here’s the data back to 2002 (Stinespring’s first year as OC). 2006 on includes data with Curt Newsome as offensive line coach.
Total offense (national rank)
2012: 391.8 ypg (71st)
2011: 413.0 ypg (35th)
2010: 402.3 ypg (41st)
2009: 392.1 ypg (50th)
2008: 303.4 ypg (103rd)
2007: 330.5 ypg (100th)
2006: 295.2 ypg (99th)
2005: 380.9 ypg (57th)
2004: 365.5 ypg (65th)
2003: 401.8 ypg (38th)
2002: 371.6 ypg (64th)
Rushing offense (national rank)
2012: 157.8 ypg (64th)
2011: 186.9 ypg (28th)
2010: 198.7 ypg (23rd)
2009: 208.2 ypg (14th)
2008: 174.4 ypg (35th)
2007: 133.6 ypg (82nd)
2006: 113.4 ypg (90th)
2005: 190.7 ypg (29th)
2004: 178.2 ypg (32nd)
2003: 209.3 ypg (17th)
2002: 212.4 ypg (19th)
Passing offense (national rank)
2012: 234.1 ypg (61st)
2011: 226.1 ypg (66th)
2010: 203.6 ypg (72nd)
2009: 183.9 ypg (95th)
2008: 129.1 ypg (111th)
2007: 196.9 ypg (85th)
2006: 181.8 ypg (82nd)
2005: 190.2 ypg (91st)
2004: 187.3 ypg (80th)
2003: 192.5 ypg (82nd)
2002: 159.2 ypg (99th)
Scoring offense (national rank)
2012: 26.1 ppg (78th)
2011: 27.9 ppg (57th)
2010: 33.9 ppg (21st)
2009: 31.9 ppg (24th)
2008: 22.1 ppg (90th)
2007: 28.7 ppg (53rd)
2006: 25.9 ppg (49th)
2005: 33.9 ppg (17th)
2004: 30.8 ppg (25th)
2003: 35.4 ppg (12th)
2002: 30.6 ppg (30th)
Red zone efficiency
2012: 87.0% (24th). 34 trips, 21 TDs, 13 FGs
2011: 75.0% (103rd). 70 trips, 35 TDs, 17 FGs
2010: 90.0% (T-5th). 62 trips, 40 TDs, 16 FGs
2009: 89.0% (T-16th). 53 trips, 32 TDs, 15 FGs
2008: 74.0% (T-99th). 58 trips, 27 TDs, 16 FGs.
Red zone efficiency not tracked by the NCAA for 2007 and prior.
Schedule strength per the NCAA
2012: 38th (includes bowl game opponent, can go up or down based on bowl results)
2011: 24th
2010: 41st
2009: 12th
2008: 18th
2007: 2nd
2006: 33rd
2005: 18th
2004: 19th
2003: T-46th
2002: 26th
It’s best not to read or listen to Frank Beamer or Stinespring when they talk to the media. They never say anything illuminating or point out the real problems
Last post. Data from the Rickey Bustle era (1995-2001). Honestly, the numbers look comparable to me. Couple of years at 30 and above (two of which were Michael Vick seasons), rest 60s and below.
Bowl game data not included as the NCAA did not start counting bowl games in statistics until 2002.
Rushing
2001: 194.7 ypg (26th)
2000: 270.5 ypg (5th)
1999: 253.9 ypg (8th)
1998: 178.4 ypg (34th)
1997: 215.3 ypg (15th)
1996: Rushing offense numbers missing from PDF
1995: 184.3 ypg (39th)
Passing
2001: 179.4 ypg (86th)
2000: 155.9 ypg (100th)
1999: 197.9 ypg (72nd)
1998: 138.4 ypg (97th)
1997: 146.9 ypg (99th)
1996: NCAA pdf only lists top-50
1995: 200.5 ypg (62nd)
Total
2001: 374.1 ypg (64th)
2000: 426.4 ypg (20th)
1999: 451.8 ypg (9th)
1998: 316.7 ypg (88th)
1997: 362.2 ypg (62nd)
1996: 417.0 ypg (27th)
1995: 384.8 ypg (47th)
Scoring
2001: 32.6 ppg (25th)
2000: 40.3 ppg (5th)
1999: 41.4 ppg (1st)
1998: 31.2 ppg (28th)
1997: 29.2 ppg (37th)
1996: 31.7 ppg (24th)
1995: 29.2 ppg (28th)
Schedule
2001: 57th
2000: t-13th
Schedule strength not recorded by NCAA prior to 2000
The football coaching staff at Tech needs some changes, and not Shane Beamer, who got the position because of his last name and his daddy.
The offense is dull, boring, out dated, and without imagination.
We will have da same coaching staff off as this year sorry to disappoint you guys cause if thet were goin to make changes they would have done it by now instead of letting best hires get away. Sorry hokie fans I feel your pain!!!!!!!
sorry bout my typos lol butt you gotta admit i make seriously valid points!!!!!
Donald, nice jib on those NCAA numbers. It will be interesting to also list the denfense rankings over the year.
The answer for the offense is to gut the entire offensive staff and find people capable of doing the job. Of course, that is highly unlikely so 2-3 years Tech will still be looking for answers for the offensive offense.
For Frank to announce his ambitious goals ( empty trophy case etc ) and settle for these offensive numbers for the last several years is a joke. Kudos for all he has accomplished, but as long as he is content with those stats then he should keep everything in perspective and not blow smoke up our you know what. Either clean house, get Weaver to open the checkbook ( or better show him the door ) and hire an O Coordinator that can bring us out of the dark ages.
If he won’t do that, step aside and get somebody who will.
I still say Beamer will get rid of a cheerleader and water boy and Weaver will say what a wonderful head coach VT has. He will milk all he can out of Tech until they call for his head on a platter and then try to turn it over to Shane so he can milk it a little more.
The game has gotten SO fast, multiple offensive schemes, etc., it has completely passed Beamer’s ways.
It has not just been this year, but comming on for awhile. Strength of schedule have kept the numbers shiny.
Would anyone care to guess what Tech’s record would be if they played a SEC schedule? Scary!
Ask and ye shall receive. Since 1995…
Total defense (national rank)
2012: 344.6 ypg (24th)
2011: 304.6 ypg (10th)
2010: 361.5 ypg (52nd)
2009: 295.5 ypg (12th)
2008: 279.4 ypg (7th)
2007: 296.9 ypg (4th)
2006: 219.5 ypg (1st)
2005: 246.6 ypg (1st)
2004: 268.0 ypg (4th)
2003: 367.5 ypg (t-51st)
2002: 335.1 ypg (32nd)
2001: 237.9 ypg (2nd)
2000: 323.6 ypg (27th)
1999: 247.3 ypg (3rd)
1998: 284.9 ypg (7th)
1997: 325.9 ypg (26th)
1996: 316.1 ypg (24th)
1995: 285.9 ypg (10th)
Rushing defense (national rank)
2012: 139.7 ypg (34th)
2011: 104.1 ypg (14th)
2010: 155.9 ypg (64th)
2009: 128.4 ypg (40th)
2008: 104.4 ypg (14th)
2007: 086.6 ypg (5th)
2006: 091.2 ypg (11th)
2005: 093.4 ypg (8th)
2004: 115.2 ypg (21st)
2003: 136.0 ypg (39th)
2002: 121.4 ypg (29th)
2001: 071.6 ypg (2nd)
2000: 099.3 ypg (16th)
1999: 075.9 ypg (3rd)
1998: 102.2 ypg (11th)
1997: 118.9 ypg (30th)
1996: 112.0 ypg (19th)
1995: 077.4 ypg (1st)
Passing defense (national rank). Anything before 2000 is ranked on efficiency, not ypg, and ther are no listed rankings for ypg
2012: 204.9 ypg (30th)
2011: 200.6 ypg (31st)
2010: 205.6 ypg (40th)
2009: 167.1 ypg (11th)
2008: 175.0 ypg (16th)
2007: 210.3 ypg (31st)
2006: 128.2 ypg (1st)
2005: 154.2 ypg (3rd)
2004: 152.8 ypg (4th)
2003: 231.5 ypg (76th)
2002: 213.6 ypg (56th)
2001: 166.3 ypg (8th)
2000: 224.4 ypg (77th)
1999: 171.4 ypg (7th)
1998: 182.7 ypg (11th)
1997: 208.0 ypg (t-53rd)
1996: 204.1 ypg (16th)
1995: 208.5 ypg (23rd)
Scoring defense (national rank)
2012: 23.9 ppg (t-39th)
2011: 17.6 ppg (7th)
2010: 20.6 ppg (26th)
2009: 15.6 ppg (9th)
2008: 16.7 ppg (9th)
2007: 16.1 ppg (3rd)
2006: 11.0 ppg (1st)
2005: 12.9 ppg (2nd)
2004: 12.8 ppg (2nd)
2003: 20.4 ppg (26th)
2002: 18.8 ppg (21st)
2001: 13.4 ppg (2nd)
2000: 22.6 ppg (45th)
1999: 10.5 ppg (1st)
1998: 12.9 ppg (4th)
1997: 16.8 ppg (13th)
1996: 15.3 ppg (9th)
1995: 14.1 ppg (5th)
Red zone defense (national rank)
2012: 80%, 40 trips, 21 TDs, 11 FGs. (t-49th)
2011: 70%. 40 trips, 21 TDs, 07 FGs. (5th)
2010: 76%, 41 trips, 24 TDs, 07 FGs. (t-22nd)
2009: 76%, 42 trips, 15 TDs, 07 FGs. (t-19th)
2008: 82%, 33 trips, 17 TDs, 10 FGs. (t-61st)
Not tracked for 2007 and prior
70′s Mike recommends we just get some studs in the trenches? Okay we’ll just go down to the studs store and pick us up a couple of those. Huh? You may have well said the solution to our problems is we need to recruit more 5 star players. Jeez!
I love Frank Beamer, but I think he really he believes what he says and that’s a concern. “Just a few plays away”, “focus on doing it better”, etc. Anyone who watches college football will tell you that when you watch the games on Saturday you can’t help but think that VT’s offense is in a lesser league, that we’re playing a different game. We’re not a few plays away. We struggle in every element of the game.
I think most of us are not nearly as interested in the bowl game as we are in the game that will play out sometime after – the one where the future of the offensive coaching staff is decided. Will it be more of the same or an honest effort to get better.
I’m an older fan and it would almost impossible for me to call for the ouster of Frank Beamer, but probably half or more of our fan base has been added since 1992 and outside of alumni the fan base includes post ’99 – they are not that patient. Honestly, who’s to say who is right. It might not be me.
R. Whitlow,
Again, there is the NCAA’s schedule strength since 2002. That SOS, except for 2003 and 2010, looks pretty darn good to me. Six years of top-25, five top-20, two top-15, and the year LSU jumped from 7 to 2 the Hokies had the #2 strength of schedule.
2012: 38th (includes bowl game opponent, can go up or down based on bowl results)
2011: 24th
2010: 41st
2009: 12th
2008: 18th
2007: 2nd
2006: 33rd
2005: 18th
2004: 19th
2003: T-46th – Big East
2002: 26th – Big East
Does anyone on this blog understand that we DID try bringing the “hurry-up” multiple package, flavor of the month to Blacksburg this year? This was the change all of you in the peanut gallery were screaming for after indulging on your Amaretto sours and noodle salad tailgates through the last several years because the offense was “outdated”. It was UGLY and didn’t work.
We weren’t particularly great on offense before, but at least we could run the ball and keep the defense off the field long enough to rest and get ready to make some more stops and ultimately be the deciding factor in winning alot of games the last 20 years. I don’t disagree with looking for someone to guide the offense in a different direction. As long as that direction is a pro-style that focuses on a solid run offense and set up the pass with the run. I will continue to state this very simple fact, Tech football has always been able to run the ball, (which apparently isn’t good enough anymore, although the other consistent top FBS teams do so) but it was absolutely horrible at this year. We got away from what we have done best (not the best) for years. Tenacious scoring defense, ground and pound offense that sets up throw-scoring opportunities with the play action pass, keep the defense off the field and hungry. It takes a whole sale program and recruiting style change to chuck and duck Tony Franklin style (by the way he’s gone, so dry your tears XBox football lovers). I’m ready to hear the changes and I’d love to know what direction this program is going as a result.
COM, there are differing variations of the hurry up offense, and Stinespring used the most antiquated version, thus only utilizing about 1/4 of its’ potential effectiveness. Stinespring’s version is as follows: When the play is finished, proceed at a normal (slow) pace to lineup without a huddle, then wait 10-15 seconds at the line for a play to be signaled in from the sidelines. Then a long count ensues, and we finally run the so-called ‘hurry up’ play.
The only advantage this provides is that it reduces the ability of the defense to make substitutions, though some are allowed anyway. It does not press the defense. It does not present many multiple formations to the defense. It does not shift momentum to a higher pace. It does not utilize the inability of the defense to prep for the play call.
Along with that, we use a very limited number of formations and plays out of this offensive strategy. Thus the defense might only have to worry about 8-10 possible plays out of Stinespring’s ‘hurry up’ offense.
Once again, it allows Beamer & Stinespring to claim they run ‘modern offensive plays’ while doing so in such an elementary manner that they kill the effectiveness of it. Even high schools can do it better, mostly because they are committed to it, unlike Stinespring.
I’m not advocating full time use of the hurry up offense. What I’m saying is that Stinespring uses so many samplings of so many offensive strategies that we do none well. The next Offensive Coordinator needs to pick one and stick with it. Sure, use some occasional hurry up plays, or spread, or pro set, or power-I, or whatever. Just use logic in doing so. Stinespring uses the following strategies – A,D,H,B,F,A,E,E,G,C,B,H,A,E, etc. with no logic at all. there’s no Plan A, with occasional stretches of Plan B or C. It’s just a mish mash.
Crooked, I agree with most of that. That type of offense never suited Stinespring, or our offensive make-up for that matter. We didn’t have the Jimmy’s and Joe’s to make plays in a “play-makers” offense. Players who run poor routes, drop passes, overthrows by the QB, a 4 headed running attack was the lack thereof, and an offensive line that never got over the hump. I think Stinespring felt the heat over the years to go to something more “modern” but in reality he went away from what was his comfort zone and ultimately above his ceiling, I believe. Years down the road he will look himself in the mirror and say “Should have done it my way.” After watching this season, I can understand the frustration among all parties involved (coaches, players, and fans). We wanted something flashy and new, but it didn’t work. If this is where we are going (Xbox football) then hopefully we get a young, enthusiastic, offensive minded guy who will take this job and run with it. Most importantly, we (Weaver, Beamer, Foster, and the fan base) will have to be patient for awhile. It may take years and different philosophies in recruiting to see the changes so many are demanding. (Keep Rich Rod at Michigan in mind) To think we’ll change our offensive identity (although we didn’t have one this year but everyone knows VT football is run to set up the pass) and go to a BCS Bowl next year is completely unrealistic. If we were to go .500 or better next year under a new offensive regime I would think it would be a success but to do that for 2 or 3 years? We’ve been spoiled and now many are ready to “bite the hand that fed us”. Are we as “loyal” fans patient enough to let the new guy work? I’m a coach and I would never call for the firing, demotion, etc. of anyone in the profession. So I’ll welcome the new guy with open arms but let’s not forget where we came from.
CR, you forgot to add the reason for the 10-15 second wait at the line of scrimmage. It is to allow a look at the defense and call a play against it. I have no problem with 85% of the play calling this year. Execution was the major problem. Prime example: The Miami game, 4th down, going for the 1st. Outlet pass to the FB. Good call, no one around him, could have gained 20+ yards. Howevery the ball sailed six feet over his head. Good play call, poor execution. The calls I did have a problem with were the 3rd/4th and short calls when everyone in the nation knew it was going to be a QB sneak by Thomas and always to the left of the line.
VT not being able to run the ball had nothing to do with multiple formations or the Stinespring version of the hurry up. It’s called blocking
there are differing variations of the hurry up offense …
Good, cause I hate when they use the same variations
In #36, COM said “We wanted something flashy and new, but it didn’t work.” Well, maybe some people wanted “flashy and new” but I’ll bet most people want an offense that can perform in the big game against the top-10 teams, an offensive coordinator who is able to make in-game adjustments and isn’t welded to set (predictable) plays at certain points in the game, and who doesn’t stop doing something that works to try something else just because the game plan calls for a passing attack (i.e., the run is moving the ball, but let’s start throwing, a la the Kansas bowl game loss).
There has been mention of problems with the offensive line, a lack of talented players (especially this season), and lack of execution. This is why Stinespring needs to go away — the poor reputation of the VT offense drives away those 4- and 5-star players who should be playing in Lane, plus Stinespring’s lack of production in even getting these players to look at VT.
I’m with CR on this. I think the problem is that Stinespring keeps adding new elements to the offense, but we don’t have a core identity or a set of “go-to” plays that defenses have to scheme to stop. Stinespring’s style is read and react, take what the D is giving; but we don’t react quickly or decisively. Too often, we look tentative and indecisive before the ball is snapped and that carries over to the execution after the snap. In that, I think the O is a reflection of the OC and it’s time for a change.
VT’s offensive woes begin and end with the offensive line. Even David Wilson, Darren Evans, etc. had trouble at times running the ball in recent years. And if you remember we had to take the redshirt off Tyrod Taylor because Sean Glennon, as a drop back passer didnt even have time to set up and throw the ball.
Its not Stinespring’s fault. The best play calls in the world wont work if the blocking is not there. We get great athletes at every position but the question remains why our offensive line doesn’t perform?
crooked road, in your last comment you said Stinespring uses the strategies A,D,H,B,F,A,E,E,G,C,B,H,A,E, etc. Can you please explain that? I am not a football expert, as you are, but I am totally confused.
An average High School Defensive Coordinator could learn Stinys offensive scheme after watching one, any VT game. Hope he reamins on the staff but the smoke and mirrors stuff has been exposed by all facing VT’s offense.Ten years of thinking you only have to score 20 points to win a game has proven to be unsuccessful.You can only lean on the defense and special teams so much.6-6 this year was a blessing.
Newsome back to JMU, Stiny to offensive line and new OC from La Tech! What da ya think?
#45, PB, what I think about the OC from LaTech is that he followed his head coach to Cal and signed a contract with them about two weeks ago. The only interest in him was on internet message boards once it was discovered that he had attended Murray State at the same time as Bud Foster, thus causing some uninformed folks to think Frank Beamer would have any interest in him at all. Which was not true.
Don’t feel bad, though, you batted .333
I am always reading what the coaches have to say hoping they will miraculously have insight in what to do on offense. But, I just about always end up disappointed. Either they do not have a clue, or they are totally into coach-speak. Then, I wonder- I am a reasonably intelligent man- I got through engineering at Virginia Tech. Why am I wasting my time even reading and commenting on interviews of the coaches. I should stick to reading what Bud Foster and his coaches have to say.