Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23
  1. #1

    Join Date
    January 19, 2004
    Posts
    15,980

    VT history of blow out losses...

    From 1995 to 2009, VT's record was 147-45 (.766) and VT only suffered 8 losses by 20 points or more...

    1995: none
    1996: Syracuse (31), Nebraska (20)
    1997: UNC (39)
    1998: none
    1999: none
    2000: Miami (20)
    2001: Pitt (31)
    2002: none
    2003: WVU (21)
    2004: none
    2005: Miami (20)
    2006: none
    2007: LSU (41)
    2008: none
    2009: none

    From 2010 through 2013, VT's record is 37-17 (.685) with six losses by 20 points or more...

    2010: Stanford (28)
    2011: Clemson (20), Clemson (28)
    2012: Clemson (21)
    2013: Alabama (25), UCLA (30)

    Our winning percentage is down a bit, which isn't good. But more disturbing is the number of times VT has gotten woodshedded. In 15 years, we only lost by 20 or more EIGHT TIMES. In the past 4 years, its happened SIX TIMES. This trend may, in part, be explained by playing better competition. But I think it is also related to the fact that VT use to be a very tough out. We were a team that battled for sixty minutes and physically punished teams -- even teams that beat us. Recently, we've just become another team on the ACC schedule. When we're outmatched athletically or out-schemed, we don't seem to have the same resiliency we had in the past. Thoughts?

    One more thing, during that 15 year stretch, we never had more than two years in a row in which we lost a game or games by 20+. In other words, if it happened one or two years in a row, we corrected it. We've now had it happen at least once in each of the past four seasons.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    September 27, 2004
    Posts
    2,274
    I also think that the game has changed over the years. Look at the offenses out there now.

    Our coaches on offense over the years (I think we have a lot of potential with our current coaches on offense, but we'll see what happens) and Beamer's conservative style have led to some tough losses.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    March 13, 2003
    Location
    Stone Ridge, VA
    Posts
    3,969
    Pretty telling data. I mean you can't deny we are getting blown out at a rate we just aren't used to. VT chose to stick to their defensive ball control strategy in an era that everyone else went the opposite direction.

    I mean, take that UCF vs Baylor game last night. Is there any Beamer led team post 2003 that would have laid 52 on Baylor? I just don't see it. We would have tried our "Michigan' game plan on them. and would have lost 42-28 or something along those lines. UCF said to hell with that. We'll out score them. Sure, we'll turn it over, but we just need to go for it. They turned it over a bunch, but they also scored every other time they had the ball.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Location
    Blacksburg
    Posts
    4,404
    Quote Originally Posted by Pride_and_Joy View Post
    From 1995 to 2009, VT's record was 147-45 (.766) and VT only suffered 8 losses by 20 points or more...

    1995: none
    1996: Syracuse (31), Nebraska (20)
    1997: UNC (39)
    1998: none
    1999: none
    2000: Miami (20)
    2001: Pitt (31)
    2002: none
    2003: WVU (21)
    2004: none
    2005: Miami (20)
    2006: none
    2007: LSU (41)
    2008: none
    2009: none

    From 2010 through 2013, VT's record is 37-17 (.685) with six losses by 20 points or more...

    2010: Stanford (28)
    2011: Clemson (20), Clemson (28)
    2012: Clemson (21)
    2013: Alabama (25), UCLA (30)

    Our winning percentage is down a bit, which isn't good. But more disturbing is the number of times VT has gotten woodshedded. In 15 years, we only lost by 20 or more EIGHT TIMES. In the past 4 years, its happened SIX TIMES. This trend may, in part, be explained by playing better competition. But I think it is also related to the fact that VT use to be a very tough out. We were a team that battled for sixty minutes and physically punished teams -- even teams that beat us. Recently, we've just become another team on the ACC schedule. When we're outmatched athletically or out-schemed, we don't seem to have the same resiliency we had in the past. Thoughts?

    One more thing, during that 15 year stretch, we never had more than two years in a row in which we lost a game or games by 20+. In other words, if it happened one or two years in a row, we corrected it. We've now had it happen at least once in each of the past four seasons.
    Why 20+ points as the standard for a blowout? If you use 30 points as the standard, there's 3 from 1995 to 2007 (13 years), and only 1 from 2008 to 2013 (5 years). Why did you divide the seasons at 2009 & 2010? Seems like an arbitrary divide. How many times did VT win by more than 20+ points?

    Still I have to agree on the point that we don't have the same attitude made us a consistent top 25 team for a number of years.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    October 07, 1999
    Location
    Elkridge MD
    Posts
    21,003
    I see two things going on here, and neither is good:

    1) Yes, we have not changed our philosophy as the game has changed. Our primary over-arching philosophy of field position, running the ball, still appears to be the major motivating force that drives our coaching staff. Many people have pointed out that this is a problem (though there are some who disagree on the board).

    2) But beyond that, we no longer even do the things right that you need to do to try to make that philosophy work. We don't have a strong, aggressive offensive line. We don't tackle well at all. We aren't typically tougher than the other team. Our special teams no longer make more game changing plays than the opposition and provide the field position dominance that is a keystone of our philosphy.

    So pick your poison: we haven't changed our philosophy at a time when the game has changed. And we don't execute the old philosophy worth a damn either.

    We have no identity as a program that I can see beyond the fact that Frank is still the man in charge. I think if the uniforms were changed and a time travelling Frank Beamer from 1996 could watch these Hokies play, he wouldn't say it out loud of course, but he'd be thinking, let's schedule these guys because we can push them all over the field like we did Syracuse in 1999.
    SteveA

  6. #6

    Join Date
    December 27, 1999
    Posts
    1,242
    Make the margin 22+ for a blowout loss (more than 3 TDs), and there would be just 4 such in the initial 15-year period, and 4 in the past 4 (the LT era), including 2 this year alone.

    Definitely not the trend you'd want to see... The bothersome part is that rarely happened to VT. Part of it I think is the decline in ST play...

  7. #7

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    3,802
    I wouldn't categorize the Sun Bowl as a woodshed game. 1997 against UNC was woodshed. Pitt in 2007, LSU in 2010 were woodshed games. Those were games that Tech never had a chance.

    UCLA whipped the Hokies in the Sun Bowl. But late in the 3rd quarter, Tech was down by seven with the ball in the red zone. When Tech had to settle for a field goal, things just fell apart from there.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    July 03, 2006
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveInBaltimore View Post
    So pick your poison: we haven't changed our philosophy at a time when the game has changed. And we don't execute the old philosophy worth a damn either.
    Hah...out of all the noise that comes across this board, that one sentence seems to sums up what's up and what's been gradually happening over the past several years.

    Love FB...luv, luv, luv him and what he's done, and I think almost everyone does...but the fire and drive to push like mad, which is probably about the only way to make it in the ultra-competitive, constantly evolving environment of FBS football, is probably waning. Can ya blame him? It's a natural thing. Did I mention I luv, luv, luv him and what he's done, and think almost everyone does?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    March 13, 2003
    Location
    Stone Ridge, VA
    Posts
    3,969
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveInBaltimore View Post

    So pick your poison: we haven't changed our philosophy at a time when the game has changed. And we don't execute the old philosophy worth a damn either.
    Well done. You've summed up everything that's wrong with the program in one sentence. Maybe two, but point is the same.

  10. #10
    Senior Member NCHokie83's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 02, 2012
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    1,857
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveInBaltimore View Post
    So pick your poison: we haven't changed our philosophy at a time when the game has changed. And we don't execute the old philosophy worth a damn either.
    So basically, Frank Beamer has reached the post-ACC Expansion Bobby Bowden point of his career where the game has passed him by and he's just holding on to rack up a few more wins before retiring?

    Meh, I don't see that. We have a good future ahead of us right now. He just stuck with crap coaches who let the offensive side of the ball deteriorate way beyond a reasonably acceptable point, and now we have to deal with the blowback before the new recruits get back up to speed.

    2014 is going to be a struggle, but starting in 2015 you're going to see a much better VT product on the field than we even saw in the years of consecutive 10 win seasons.
    "I love it when you guys try to write off a Frank Beamer team -- no one is going to win this conference without Virginia Tech having some sort of say in it." - David Cutcliffe

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •