Week 5: Virginia Tech @ Cincinnati (in Landover, MD) (Sept. 29, 2012)

[VTscores]

Why would we want to limit ourselves to an "offense." A "multiple" offense is way better because then NOBODY can key in on what we are doing.

I like the "multiple" offense.

I'd just like to see better play calling, and more of it through the air. If we want a running game, it starts with a killer offensive line. If you don't have the holes to run through, sending guys up through the middle only to get bogged down and tackled for a loss isn't a success strategy.

 

[EvanGWatkins]

I like the "multiple" offense.

I'd just like to see better play calling, and more of it through the air. If we want a running game, it starts with a killer offensive line. If you don't have the holes to run through, sending guys up through the middle only to get bogged down and tackled for a loss isn't a success strategy.

I would like to see JC get more carries to the outside (even screen passes) because he is electric. Then you can mix in a 2 back set with JC and Holmes and the D-Line will either have to monitor the outside or the inside lanes, and we could expose the defense. We have to establish the run early, make the opponent fear the RB. I really like the Jet Sweep we have been running, it sets up a lot of holes for the other backs. I think we need to use JC on the jet instead of a WR though, because then we can keep the WR out for a pass on a fake. JMHO

 

[sparko]

I like a multiple offense as well but not 7 different formations. Let's be realistic too. We're not a team with players (namely OL) that have the ability to line up in the I and ram it down your throat. Alabama's QB is good but he's not as great as his numbers show. He has ridiculous talent around him (on the line, out wide, and behind him), they have a stupid-good running game, and their game plan is fairly vanilla. He's not asked to win a game for them. The OL and defense does it for him. Teams know EXACTLY what Bama is going to do. The different is that it doesn't matter. They still can ram the ball down your throat and there's nothing most defenses can do about it. VT can't do that. Our coaches have to figure out, through film review, what it working offensively and WHY. Then, they script and run plays that we can be successful in, setting those kids up for some early success. LT is rusty a the beginning of the game. Start with some outside runs and short easy passes. Get JCC, MD7, Dyrell the DAMN ball so they can make plays in the open field <<< because they've shown that they do.

 

[sparko]

and not taking anything away from the potential of our RBs or DBs, but man --- are we missing David Wilson and Jayron Hosley right now or what? This would be a totally different team right now with them (not to mention our WRs).

 

[HokieChamp]

I like the "multiple" offense.

I'd just like to see better play calling, and more of it through the air. If we want a running game, it starts with a killer offensive line. If you don't have the holes to run through, sending guys up through the middle only to get bogged down and tackled for a loss isn't a success strategy.

Multiple offense would be great if we ran more than a couple plays out of each formation. Running 8 formations or more with just a few plays out of each means the opposing defense can recognize the formations and probably guess what play we want to run based on down and distance.

I would much rather prefer what we've somewhat installed so far: a 3-formation spread offense with a wider number of plays that can be run out of all three. In the past, when we lined up in I-form, I knew they were running, my wife knew they were running, and you can bet their defense knew we were running. But we've passed out of the I-form. We've run out of the pistol. You can do so much more when the opposing D doesn't know what play you're running based on the formation. That and it's easier to teach to young players.

What's easier to learn: a playbook with 8-9 different formations and 4-5 plays in each one, or a playbook with 3 formations and 9-12 plays in each one? There's less confusion IMO with the latter and it's waaaaaaaay easier to audible at the line from run to pass or vice-versa. If Stinespring would've actually drilled the base offense into the players' heads during the summer instead of tinkering with plays and trying to add wrinkles, it would probably look much better.

The goal of the spread was to simplify our offense and disguise our plays better, and instead he's making it more complicated and giving a few plays away with offset I-forms and 2-back shotguns. I say let O'Cain be the new offensive coordinator or find a new one, retain Stiney as an O-line coach (and give him the title of chief of recruiting since you'll feel bad for taking his position away, Frank), and fire Newsome. We need a better offensive line more than anything. Those guys are terrible.

I would love to see this spread offense stick under a new coordinator. I really feel like it has a great chance of succeeding at times when our old style of play has failed in the past.

 

[VTfoozball]

Seriously, go ahead and change your screenname and pick a new team. We dont want or need such fair-weather bitches in Hokie Nation.

Ooh internet tough guy. You really scare me spalding. No thanks I'll stay

 

[VTfoozball]

The main problem with the offensive coaches is that they do not go with what works. It seems like they go into every season and game with a plan and don't change the plan no matter what happens. The O-line and especially the guards can't run block but the tackles are pretty decent. Why not use the talent they do have on the O-line to get yardage around the ends? And I mean ALL the time until they stop it. Why leave LT as the starter when he's sucked all year long? At least try to light a fire under him by putting Leal in. I wonder how many OCs and head coaches would continue to NOT play to their strengths and NOT make a QB change when it's necessary.

 

[VTscores]

I would like to see JC get more carries to the outside (even screen passes) because he is electric. Then you can mix in a 2 back set with JC and Holmes and the D-Line will either have to monitor the outside or the inside lanes, and we could expose the defense. We have to establish the run early, make the opponent fear the RB. I really like the Jet Sweep we have been running, it sets up a lot of holes for the other backs. I think we need to use JC on the jet instead of a WR though, because then we can keep the WR out for a pass on a fake. JMHO

I agree. I hope the coaches are reading this.

 

[robV703]

I want to give AJ Hughes and Tweedy some props for an excellent special teams performance. It's refreshing to see really good play on special teams.

 

[hokiegrad]

Ooh internet tough guy. You really scare me spalding. No thanks I'll stay

what part of that made you think he was trying to scare you? :confused2:

 

[hokiegrad]

I want to give AJ Hughes and Tweedy some props for an excellent special teams performance. It's refreshing to see really good play on special teams.

agreed. Both have been good this year. Looking forward to having a good punter again for several years to come.

 

[HoHumHokie]

agreed. Both have been good this year. Looking forward to having a good punter again for several years to come.

They both played well. I believe Hughes is one of the guests on TTL tonight. I agree with Evan on getting Holmes and JC in the game together. Holmes has looked pretty good late in the GT and Cincy games, we need to get him going early.

 

[VTfoozball]

what part of that made you think he was trying to scare you? :confused2:

Well he IS a scary looking guy

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Fooz, I do think that you should have your own rant thread though. It would be kind of fun and a bit more organized. It may also save you some time and cardiac health to not have to repeat so much. Anyone can start a thread..

 

[ACC_HOKIES]

 

[robV703]

Fooz, I do think that you should have your own rant thread though. It would be kind of fun and a bit more organized. It may also save you some time and cardiac health to not have to repeat so much. Anyone can start a thread..

There was one and you closed it.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

There was one and you closed it.

I closed it because it got out of hand. TAE isn't here anymore, so it could be OK. He CAN start a thread though. Anyone can.

 

[ACC_HOKIES]

The main problem with the offensive coaches is that they do not go with what works. It seems like they go into every season and game with a plan and don't change the plan no matter what happens. The O-line and especially the guards can't run block but the tackles are pretty decent. Why not use the talent they do have on the O-line to get yardage around the ends? And I mean ALL the time until they stop it. Why leave LT as the starter when he's sucked all year long? At least try to light a fire under him by putting Leal in. I wonder how many OCs and head coaches would continue to NOT play to their strengths and NOT make a QB change when it's necessary.

Perhaps if the coaches went with what worked in the first place, we'd still be able to run the ball. Instead we've moved on to the spread offense that half the fanbase begged to go to for years. The offense has been evolving for a decade. There's a huge difference between the 2002 offense and the 2012 playbook. We're throwing the ball on 47% of downs! The staff is changing things but it didn't get this way overnight. Much like every year, adjustments will be made to the same old boring offense everyone hates but still wins games.

What exactly does benching LT do? He's our quarterback and best offensive player. He'll be our quarterback next year. The answer isn't to bench him. The answer is to put him in position to make positive things happen. That is exactly what the staff did last year (after people irrationally pissed all over LT). The CORRECT decision last year by the staff resulted in a record setting year for Logan Thomas. Have just alittle faith man.

 

[VTfoozball]

Fooz, I do think that you should have your own rant thread though. It would be kind of fun and a bit more organized. It may also save you some time and cardiac health to not have to repeat so much. Anyone can start a thread..

I'm no more repetitive than the coaches as they do the same stupid stuff game after game year after year. But I'll try to keep it to a minimum by my standards at least. I just can't express how much I want Newsome shitcanned, Stinespring demoted, and O'Cain removed from playcalling duties in order for qualified OC and OL coaches to come in. As I watch the games almost every offensive play reinforces those needs

 

[ACC_HOKIES]

Multiple offense would be great if we ran more than a couple plays out of each formation. Running 8 formations or more with just a few plays out of each means the opposing defense can recognize the formations and probably guess what play we want to run based on down and distance.

I would much rather prefer what we've somewhat installed so far: a 3-formation spread offense with a wider number of plays that can be run out of all three. In the past, when we lined up in I-form, I knew they were running, my wife knew they were running, and you can bet their defense knew we were running. But we've passed out of the I-form. We've run out of the pistol. You can do so much more when the opposing D doesn't know what play you're running based on the formation. That and it's easier to teach to young players.

What's easier to learn: a playbook with 8-9 different formations and 4-5 plays in each one, or a playbook with 3 formations and 9-12 plays in each one? There's less confusion IMO with the latter and it's waaaaaaaay easier to audible at the line from run to pass or vice-versa. If Stinespring would've actually drilled the base offense into the players' heads during the summer instead of tinkering with plays and trying to add wrinkles, it would probably look much better.

The goal of the spread was to simplify our offense and disguise our plays better, and instead he's making it more complicated and giving a few plays away with offset I-forms and 2-back shotguns. I say let O'Cain be the new offensive coordinator or find a new one, retain Stiney as an O-line coach (and give him the title of chief of recruiting since you'll feel bad for taking his position away, Frank), and fire Newsome. We need a better offensive line more than anything. Those guys are terrible.

I would love to see this spread offense stick under a new coordinator. I really feel like it has a great chance of succeeding at times when our old style of play has failed in the past.

The purpose of the spread isn't to simplify the offense. The purpose of the spread is to literally spread the defense so far out that they're forced to perform their assignments 100% and tackle in space. This leads to big gains with a single missed tackle and an exaggerated advantage in certain matchups.

You can make it simple, but you can also make a power run game simple and bowl people over, or make a pro set simple and take advantage of a number of given advantages. Don't be fooled into thinking that spread offenses are the only ones that succeed with a few bread and butter plays. A few years ago Wisconsin dominated opponents with a strong traditional power run game and play action. It was nothing fancy, and certainly not a complicated offense. Stanford ran a lot of the sameole same ole pro set and power run stuff with tremendous success, setting up Luck for national awards. Alabama and LSU has success running simple traditional plays and sets every year.