Look at LT's 3/4 and short and RZ success vs. DW's.
Not entirely true. I already noted that RZ yards are hard to come by b/c there is less field to defend, but our RZ efficiency is way below average. VT was 104 of 120 in RZ efficiency last year, and in a year where it faced very poor defenses. http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/f...t/team/1038/p3
So again, there is no reason VT should be 104 out of 120 where the best defense it faced last year was Arkansas State. VT did not face a single elite D (top 10) or excellent D (top 20) or very good D(top 30), just one good D against a statistically decent ASU playing in a non-BCS conference. When you tell the opposing D that 90% of the time, you are going to run the ball on 1st and 2nd downs, the likelihood of getting stopped goes up considerably. If the D is kept on their heels, the odds are better, not as good between the 20's, but certainly better when a real threat of the forward pass exists.
No matter who you are there is just less variety that an offense can do. You have much smaller "cracks" to run through and windows to throw to. Throwing is not the answer unless you have Boise talent vs a Boise schedule or Bama vs anyone outside the top 15 or so. A lot of the spread teams show this over and over To be good in the red zone you have to either be able to attack the middle or be excellent in sealing the corners and block in space to attack the corners.
Some seem to think we could expertly pass and attack the very small windows in the passing game but we can't. The teams who can, at least as I have seen, are those who can first attack between the tackles sufficiently to make the defenses legitimately defend that first. doing just what we have done has given us the best odds of getting 6 or at least getting 3 vs nothing. Last year is the first year since Druck that we had the possibility of being successful with the kind of passing game that some think is so easy.
You first have to do what you do best. Even if that is not very good against the competition you play it is probably better than trying to go against those defenses with something
So in your opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what we are doing on O, and the coaches are taking blame for the lack of ready talent on O when it struggles, i.e. no other O coaches or scheme could do any better than the group we have now. Since our guys can't block up front, it's fine to just run into the teeth of the D, knowing that with the talent we have, that's the best the coaches can do. So that is your stance right?
Yeah, but the 1995 line became the 1996 line. People lump them together because they are the same unit.
"Upon examination, it was clear that the spine of the PATT wasn't fully formed and, therefore, quite easy to snap." - Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species"