Bitter blog - Mike O'Cain Q&A, Part I

[StudentHokie]

Three things can happen when you run and two of them bad.

1. Tackle behind the line of scrimmage for loss.
2. Fumble.
3. Positive yards gained.

So what you're saying is that our offense is actually fairly effective, considering we're effective about a 1/3rd of the time?

I say this partly in jest.

[avhokie]

Could you imagine BF coming out and saying something as dumb as "You know, we’re not just a defense going out trying to stop the other O every time."

[hokienole]

Could you imagine BF coming out and saying something as dumb as "You know, we’re not just a defense going out trying to stop the other O every time."

So on the drives not designed to score, a -22 yd run suddenly makes sense

[BeamerBallin]

Very well written sir, and I have come to believe every bit of what you have summed through experience watching and applying a logic/rational filter to it as best as I can.


I really think you summed it up perfectly. I just wish, your post somehow could land on Beamer's desk and he reads. I hope pressure mounts on Beamer so that he abandons is nonsensical approach. Because it is maddening, truly maddening. The eye does not lie!

[HokieJamie]

http://blogs.roanoke.com/andybitterv...n-early-downs/

Also O'Cain is second guessing his play calling. In Stinespring's article he said you never second guess yourself. Obviously BS philosophy to that has huge holes in it.

But there's not need to beat the throw more on 1st down mantra, that's been all over this board for years. It's not a flavor of the month.

[hokienole]

That's an odd statement, because in your post, you reference things we have talked about in our articles, some of it from me and Chris, and some from Raleigh Hokie -- the Michigan game, the Kansas game, the high percentage of first-down runs in the red zone (Kyle Tucker gets kudos there, but I also put together a video from the Sugar Bowl showing red-zone offensive playcalling.)

Over the years, we've said repeatedly that VT runs a ball-control offense and prizes defense and special teams over offense. Just because we don't rant and rage about it in every single article doesn't mean we haven't said it.

Remember my fishbowl comment in one of my articles? The scenery never changes. We're just swimming back and forth in our fishbowl. It is what it is. I've said in the past that Frank learned his program philosophy from Jerry Claiborne, his mentor ... you know, Jerry Claiborne, who started his head coaching career 51 years ago and ended it 23 years ago, and who really liked the Woody Hayes/Darrell Royal quote, "Three Things Can Happen When You Pass and Two of Them Are Bad."

Here's the thing: IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE. So why analyze it and talk about it constantly? All it would do is poison the web site by constantly pointing out one of the weaknesses (IMO) that holds Frank's program back. We'll talk about it from time to time, but there's no sense in repeatedly analyzing it. All that would do is make the fishbowl an unpleasant place to live. Even the Fire Bryan Stinespring web site has branched out into talking about other stuff, instead of constantly railing on Stiney.

If you're going to talk about the things you think Frank does poorly -- or areas where I wish he would evolve, I guess -- then you have to also talk about the things he does well -- runs a clean program (as far as we know), has good kids in the program, creates a good atmosphere, etc. etc. So we talk about all those things, not just the fact that he might want to consider a different approach to offense.

Lots of good discussion on this topic on Subscribers Bd, thanks Will.

[Techsupport]

Wow

[Techsupport]

No, that's not what he's trying to say. What he's trying to say is the following: We have quite a bit of freedom to call whatever plays we want, but (x) number of them must be running plays in order to fit our philosophy, regardless of the situation.

[talps]

"There is a philosophical approach that we have to our offense in the context of this team. You know, we’re not just an offense going out trying to score every time." -

Really -- haha. I simply can't fault O'Cain (and to lesser extent Stinespring) anymore, that philosophy is all Beamer's. This is taking ball control offense so far off to one tangent it becomes the non-sensical mess, with respect to strategy, we see all too often.

An offense that doesn't score by design.....I'll admit, that (and only that) helps explain an offense that doesn't exploit other teams's weaknesses like vs Michigan's weak pass D in the Sugar Bowl....and an offense that didn't exploit Kansas's weak run D in the 2nd qtr of the Orange Bowl (these team's quickly lined up to take the heat of their respective weaknesses, and VT happily obliged in return). Running 97.3% of the time on 1st down in the red zone makes sense within that context too.... Too much blame on the OLine (caveat, not 2006-2008 though) year after year too. An offensive line playing for an offense that isn't really designed to score every time is by default not going to look all that good. The 20:1 touchdown ratio WVU had relative to VT when playing Clemson makes too much sense now also.

Suddenly the offense I watch that seemingly doesn't make sense half the time is starting to make sense (it's not supposed to).

IMHO, This is anachronistic and has no place in college football 2012 anymore. That is unless VT winds up with Alabama's current Defense or Nebraska 1995 Oline. When you don't have the luxury of having those things, strategy and tactical nuance, while on offense, with respect to the opponent can help even out the playing field.

Mike O’Cain: ‘We probably needed to throw the ball more on early downs’ -- lol...then why don't you? You're the coach calling plays. Same thing comes from Stinespring year after year. Things never change.

Actually, I'd propose that under Beamer's offense, you really don't need to throw the ball more on early downs.... as counterintuitive as that is to most of us. It's all written into the Beamer philosophy. In that regard, O'Cain is being a little dishonest here, or covering up for Beamer's philosophy.

A bull headed no scoring offense by design is simply not getting it done at VT in the context of Beamer's ultimate goal (MNC). It's also severely (imho) hurting his own record in the national marquee matchups.

I'm somewhat perplexed as to why this elephant in the room is not discussed, through statistical analysis, more by the TSL staff.

Call me an eternal optimist, but I think people are dragging what he's saying slightly out of context. I think he'd be more than happy if we scored on every possession; but this is football, and that doesn't happen. With every play comes a certain level of risk and reward, and in a shifting game context we have a shifting set of priorities. We have to manage both the risk and the priorities in the context of where we are in the game. Philosophically, I think it's just that our team would like to play lower than average risky football, for more consistent play and results against our main priority, winning.

Simple example: we get caught on our own 2 yard line by a fantastic punt cover. What are our priorities? 1. Win the game, always. But how important is it that we score this possession? how much weight do we put on not having our kicker backed up in the end zone?

What if we're in the lead, tight game, with the ball, low time on the clock. How high to we rank running out that clock against getting another score? Another score pushes our lead, but requires riskier plays that give a greater chance of ending with a big turnover, etc.

Obviously I'm taking extreme examples, but there's so many priorities such as philosophy around O-line dominating their D-line, giving a QB confidence if he's shaky, giving a running back reps to get hot.

It may just be me, but I think we're pigeonholing his comment too far into "we think you run the ball too much" against what he actually means.

[avhokie]

Simple example

This is pretty much how every team does it. It doesn't need to be stated as an excuse as to why we are not better. Unless that's not the intent of the quote.