Comments on: Kevin Sherman to Purdue? His sports marketing firm certainly thinks it’s happening

By: Forever Hokie

Forever Hokie — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:11 +0000

Plays are called based on percentages of success. Sometimes a coach will take a chance to spark the team. If the players execute, the coach is a genius. If it fails the coach is an indiot.
Some of you have no clue. That is why you are on a blog and not on a football sideline calling plays

By: Victor

Victor — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 03:34:38 +0000

Danny: True, but an instinctual play caller knows when to call the right play at the right time even when execution is not going so well. Beamer really stunk it up in the Sugarbowl last year when he called for the fake punt.

By: danny

danny — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:23:38 +0000

I didnt mean that play calling wasnt important. My point is that good execution determines whether any play will be successful or not. Up front blocking is critical and we havent been very strong there. Not much Stiney or anyone else can do if we do not block well.

By: scott whitaker

scott whitaker — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:36:11 +0000

Can anyone imagine MV playing college ball with a spread offense like at A&M?
Vick played under Bustle, who, if we will recall, defined the word conservative when it came to O scheme and play calling. There was nothing akin to a spread or hurry up. Run up the gut on first and second and let MV do his thing on third. A typical outing for him was maybe 12-17, 1 TD, 180 yds. His numbers would be even way better today at VT, let alone somewhere like A&M, IMHO. Comparing Manziel’s and MV’s stats is apples to oranges.

By: Andy Bitter

Andy Bitter — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:34:35 +0000

Stanford does have that reputation. It’s a private school, though, so it doesn’t have to release its salaries.

Also, whatever money he makes would go a lot further in Blackburg vs. Palo Alto.

By: scott whitaker

scott whitaker — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:30:00 +0000

I’ve pointed this out before Andy and you may disagree. Stanford is a very good team now. Right now. They have been that way for four years. Their modern day record, however, has not been good. During VT’s 20 year bowl era Stanford went to 8 bowls, 4 of those being in the last 4 years. When Harbaugh left after ’10, he was the 2nd lowest paid HC in the pac-12. My understanding is Stanford does not pay it’s coaches on a par with the other schools. Maybe, just maybe if he is interested in VT it is because of the pay and the question mark about how long Stanford will continue its streak.

By: Victor

Victor — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:29:17 +0000

Danny: If playing calling is not that important, then why won’t the ole ball coach relinquish his duty?

By: Perch

Perch — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:24:51 +0000

Dave and Scott are making sense. Pete is correct. Ancient and Peppers are full of it, almost makes me wish crooked would get out of bed. Anyone who has followed the Hokies, and I have since ’68, knows that we are lucky to have had Frank Beamer and most of his staff these last 26 years. To gripe about the offensive performance/direction, however, is a legitimate position. I have been griping about Stiney for so long my best friends are sick of it, but they’ve been griping about our offensive line at least that long, so I think it is evident that Hokiedom has had it with our current offensive approach. Our problem isn’t scheduling, almost all of the top teams are rife with cupcakery, it is good for football when the little guy gets to play too, and on occasion, knock of the big bad ranked team. Even getting trounced helps pay the bills in the hinterlands, and their fans love their teams as much as we love ours, so why not? No, the problem is offensive line recruitment and the need to either have the hosses to ram it down the other’s throat even when they know what’s coming, or the schemes to work around weaknesses with cleverness and finesse. Bud Foster has been outstanding at that.
Mike Vick was a phenomenal college football player, VT owes him gratitude, and until David Wilson showed up, I thought we’d not see his like again in the ‘Burg. Yeah, we could do better than this year, and we all want more offense, but let’s not lose perspective and throw the baby out with the bathwater! Beamer’s loyal family approach has produced more positives than negatives, stability on staff is not a negative until carried to unproductive extremes. Winning a NC is every major program’s ultimate goal, but there’s only one a year to go around. Lighten up and enjoy the fun part of football, being a fan, win or lose. Yeah, gripe and opine, that’s the fun of blog posting, but please, keep some perspective while you’re at it. Some of the gleeful put-downs and unbridled vitriol I have read is just self-serving tripe from the usual malcontents who would find a reason to rag VT even if we were to win the “Big One”.

By: Andy Bitter

Andy Bitter — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:01:21 +0000

Derrick, I know what VT sees in Hamilton. I’m not quite sure what the huge benefit is for Hamilton, unless the money is so much more or he really has a passion to get back to the East Coast.

He’s kind of set up at Stanford. He’s 38, probably will be the OC for a top-five team next year with a ton of returning talent, including his hand-picked guy at quarterback, Kevin Hogan. If he’s looking to be upwardly mobile, it seems like Stanford would be more of a launching pad that Virginia Tech.

Then again David Shaw gets a lot of credit out there. Maybe he doesn’t like being in the Shaw’s shadow. I’m not sure, quite honestly.

By: danny33@yahoo.com

danny33@yahoo.com — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 15:56:41 +0000

Victor, I believe it’s more about blocking, running, paasing, etc. than it is about play calling. Any called play will work if the proper execution is there. Key word being execution.