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

[48zip]

deleted

[amptech]

When their weakness is not as weak as what you are attacking with. When you have to have your biggest weakness play lights out to be able to attack their biggest weakness.

Your assumption that what we do on offense is by a design from the beginning regardless of the players. So most our your post is not germane because it is based on that assumption. In fact everything you think should be done may well have been done and what you see is mostly reactive to what the probabilities are.

You assume that the defenses we have played are not better than us just that they have overloaded against a very limited offenses leaving something wide open.

But you don't consider that the limited offense is due to the fact the D is beating us straight up, not overloaded. The D is so winning in the middle that the LB and safeties are totally free to react to anything, nobody gets on them.

We saw a much greater variety of passing plays this year because our passer and receivers could do more than the combos we have had in the past.

Its the correct reaction to the players you have, not a philosophy in spite of the players you have.

[amptech]

You are so tiresome. You're just the latest in a long string of yammering anonymous internet complainers, through season after season of a fantastically successful football program. Here you've taken a quote out of context, CLEARLY counter to the intent of the full comment, and then proceeded to react with indignation at your willfully senseless interpretation.

Here's the FULL quote, as far as its reasonable full and fair context:
"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. Now, obviously that is your goal. It’s an offense going out there, compatible with our defense and our special teams and working to win the game."

There is no elephant in the room. Beamer has been winning a lot of games his way for the Hokies since 1993. It works, it has been working, it will keep working. Its simple. Its so simple and so effective and you don't get it. You don't understand it. Your comments and analyses are flawed through invalid assumptions and spurious conclusions -- because you don't understand what's plainly in front of you.

Whatever. I realize I'm just shouting at the moon.

Gee, you mean the people that assume the coach can take average players and be BCS bowl winners, just by philosophy and play calling?

Sadly they do.

Either we are overachieving with good coaching or we are underachieving with bad coaching.

[48zip]

Gee, you mean the people that assume the coach can take average players and be BCS bowl winners, just by philosophy and play calling?

Sadly they do.

Either we are overachieving with good coaching or we are underachieving with bad coaching.

Does it have to be "either overachieving or underachieving (in the big picture)?

Can it be that we're a team with Top 10-15 talent and a staff of same? And is that bad?

I worried after the '99 seeason that we would not be satisfied without a MNC after "tasting the apple". Sadly, I think it has come to that.

[anOldHokie]

You are so tiresome. You're just the latest in a long string of yammering anonymous internet complainers, through season after season of a fantastically successful football program. Here you've taken a quote out of context, CLEARLY counter to the intent of the full comment, and then proceeded to react with indignation at your willfully senseless interpretation.

Here's the FULL quote, as far as its reasonable full and fair context:
"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. Now, obviously that is your goal. It’s an offense going out there, compatible with our defense and our special teams and working to win the game."

There is no elephant in the room. Beamer has been winning a lot of games his way for the Hokies since 1993. It works, it has been working, it will keep working. Its simple. Its so simple and so effective and you don't get it. You don't understand it. Your comments and analyses are flawed through invalid assumptions and spurious conclusions -- because you don't understand what's plainly in front of you.

Whatever. I realize I'm just shouting at the moon.

Is somebody making you read his posts?

[48zip]

Is somebody making you read his posts?

Perhaps you didn't read his post. He wasn't tired of reading the post He was tired of quote taken out of context. I'll bet if you read his post, and the one that prompted it, you will get a better feel for the purpose of his comment.

[Ancient Hokie]

Score everytime you can as fast as you can! That should always be the philosophy! Agggghhhhh!

I think most coaches would say time consuming drives that rest your defense (and tire their defense) are far, far preferable to scoring very quickly and putting your D back on the field. Every play. when drawn on the board looks like a potential touchdown, but that just isn't the case.

[NokieHokie]

I think most coaches would say time consuming drives that rest your defense (and tire their defense) are far, far preferable to scoring very quickly and putting your D back on the field. Every play. when drawn on the board looks like a potential touchdown, but that just isn't the case.

Time consuming drives that end with a TOUCHDOWN are better than quick drives that end in a touchdown.

Time consuming drives that don't end in a touchdown are not better than quick drives that end in a touchdown.

[public knowledge]

Agreed

Time consuming drives that end with a TOUCHDOWN are better than quick drives that end in a touchdown.

Time consuming drives that don't end in a touchdown are not better than quick drives that end in a touchdown.

[Baltimore Hokie]

No it should not. Your comment is like a boxer who throws KO energy punches every time. It's like a hitter who swings for the fences every time.

Or how about taking a minute off the clock up by 1 with 3 minutes to go and giving the other team that extra opportunity. Limiting the other teams opportunities to score is way more important to 90% of the games than the ability to score yourself.

Take the Super Bowl as good as Brady is, one more opportunity for the other team was one too many.



The very idea of forcing a fast scoring offense on a game goes so against what the complainers whine about.

You have to work with what you have to give you the best chance of winning, not scoring but winning.

You win by scoring more, not by limiting the other team to less. Yours is the philosophy that allows us to assess our offense as to are they 'able to score enough points to win.' You can, and should, do both - score a lot, and limit the other team's scoring.

The year we played for the NC, we also led the nation in scoring offense. This is no coincidence. We can win a lot of games by defense, but to be the best you also have to be able to score. Bama's offense averaged 35 points per game. When your defense is as good as their's is, that's adequate.

Our coaches realize this, so we've been devoting more practice time to offensive execution since mid-2009.