Funny as hell.
Packaged play. Braxton gets the hand off and has the run/pass option. Although, it probably needs to be simplified to a single read, maybe two. So maybe the SS TE seals the cross field pursuit.
I've been about something like that, but more of a triple option. Here's what I've got. WR set wide in 1 vs. 1 coverage to weak side of field, RB to weak side of QB, TE and WR to strong side. Miller goes in motion. Hand off to Miller in motion who is trying to attack far edge of field where WR is lined up, leading blocker is WS RB. SS TE runs across formation at second level 5 yard. SS WR deep post. WS WR runs down and out 7-10 yards. One safety will have to respect deep post, if not, over the top. If WS CB steps up on run, WR is open for pass. If MLB chases run, TE cross is open. If no pursuit, you take Braxton out running VT to the sideline for a gain.
I guess that my main concern with all the Miller hype right now. We know he's fast, but hes still learning the WR position. I think we know situations where Braxton has the advantage, when he's in space with the ball. However, because hes so fresh in the position, I do wonder if he will have the ability to shake some very good CBs while running a route or be able to effectively disengage them at the line. Time will tell, but if he can do what I'm not sure he can, which is what you suggest, then he will be very dangerous.
I'd really like to see Scary Terry in there running some verticals.
I will gladly take another loss at your hands if it puts another ring on ours.
Nah, they actually have been great. About the only time you'd see them get the tiniest bit defensive is when someone would say how pathetic they thought Lane stadium was (which is not true) or how badly we were going to blow them out (which I don't think is true, but we will find out soon).
I enjoy them very much. They are knowledgable and bring perspective. The only people they really clash with on this site are the stubborn buckeye homers.
Nope. I just hope they can make it a game. TCU is explosive and Boykin is too good and too experienced.
My thoughts too. We don't know our other CB will fill in and Powell was mistake prone last year. In addition, our DL is young with a few spots unproven, and lacking depth. It's hard to see them being the best ever, but the potential is there and it just depends on how they grow through the season.
I agree with rust on both sides, but we're talking 21 points like you said. I am more evaluating how that margin will happen and as I stated, I think we could hit that margin only if we hold VT to under 10, maybe 14 points. Anything over 14 points means we need 35 points for that spread. That's a lot of points given away game and night game (big home field advantage), playing great defense and first game where defense gets even more of an edge.
I do think we're in a better spot than last year in terms of experience and play makers. We didn't make many plays on them last year. It remains to be seen if we can do it this year, but keep in mind that VT's CBs might be the best in the country.
But they were playing their best football of the season during that final stretch. There's a ton of rust on these guys right now. Not to mention that they play a very good defense and defense normally is ahead of offense at this early stage in the season. If we do win by 3 TDs, it will be because our defense holds them under 10 points. I don't see our offense scoring much over 30 points in this game.
I will now divulge my playoff teams:
EZE wins the Heisman.
Tennessee beats Bama at home.
TTUN losses 4 games by the time we play.
JT is the QB to my chagrin.
Both VT and MSU give us fits.
If it hits 14, I'm taking VT and the points.
It's also not realistic to compare this years defense, playing its first game to last years team playing its last game.
I think there's a simple flaw in your logic here: You use last season to justify your opinion that OSU is a proven commodity, but you ignore that, in all of this "proof," VT beat us last year.
This can be found in another thread:
"The primary reason Foster employed the Bear defense against spread rushing teams was because of its ability to shut down the interior rushing game by formation."
We are all so focused on VT's defense vs our offense that no one has really detailed this matchup, which will be an extremely important one.
Last year, our defense played very well against VT, but we could not get off the field. That must happen this year. Do not let them sustain drives. Do not allow them 3rd and long conversions. I am very interested to see our rushing defense. I think holding them under 100 yards rushing is in the winning stat line.
Sorry, I messed up my stance with you a bit with the vague "yes and no" answer. I agree that running the ball effectively will definitely be helpful. The point I was making with the "no" part was that the bear is designed to stop the inside running game and therefore, if the bear can't stop our running, I'm not so sure that they would abandon it, only because you can't adjust to any more of a run stopping defense than they are already in. So, no, I don't think that running the ball effectively on a bear front will open up the pass game any more because I don't think you can open a defense up to the pass anymore than they already are when playing bear defense, which means DBs are entirely in man coverage.
I do think that stat line for Zeke would be included in a victory and not a loss. But just as you state, the biggest key is winning battles in space - at the edges and in the secondary. IMO, winning space forces VT out of bear and into a defense that will better play into our hands. I've seen the opinion surface that VT wont play exclusive bear. I agree with this. So I do feel like we will get some yards on the ground regardless. But what we failed to do last year was win space battles and 1 vs 1 and force VT to respect our ability to hit the edge and the deep ball. If we can make VT respect the deep ball and the edges of the field, we're in a great position, because then we should be able to have our way with the running game. I think the main way to do this is through the passing game though. I hope that our QB will have more time this year. Coupled with some game experience, I think this will allow better progression through reads, better decisions and ultimately, less sacks and more completions.
Fantastic contribution. I'm enjoying it.
How else would you classify the bear front that VT operates from? Its the same front was very effective against our spread attack last year.
Yes and no. I agree with the concept, but if OSU runs the ball well against a running heavy front, I'm not so sure that makes VT adjust (thinking along the lines of, this is the best we've got to stop the run). I think most importantly, we need a few big passing plays combined with a decent (doesn't have to be great) running game.
We've got to find a way to stretch the field one way or another. That's probably the biggest underlying key to the game. Whether its by perimeter running game or by vertical passing game (or by winning 1 vs 1 matchups with their DBs), we need to get them stretched out on defense and on their heels.
Yea, if only that garbage 7-6 team could have gotten run off the field in Columbus, Ohio. Hmmm.
I'd certainly like to direct you to our treatment of some Hokie fans. Not everyone on the site, but we have our fair share as well. And the Hokies aren't even our rivals.
How can you say anything about a team that hasn't played a snap yet? We have no idea how this team has handled the off season. We have no idea how this team will handle game speed against a well coached and talented team that has proven itself capable of game planning for victory and executing the plan. Many are just assuming that we will pick up exactly where we left off in 2014. Many are also assuming that VT has been sitting around eating cream puffs while we have been working hard. Thats the truth.
If only some of our fans could take a lesson from them....
all the fans I ran into before and after the game were perfectly classy. They were excited that they knocked off a top 5 team: Who wouldn't be? But they weren't talking smack.