»
Topic: For the VT lurkers, facts
Replies: 49   Last Post: Sep 28, 2017 11:13 PM by: JKBtigerpaw
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 49  

For the VT lurkers, facts

[23]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 8:50 AM
 

I'm so sick of hearing how your program is better and before Dabo you were dominant over Clemson.

Here are the facts:

All time series 21-12-1 Clemson (take away Dabo and we STILL win 17-12-1)
Outright National Titles 2-0 Clemson (take away Dabo and we STILL win 1-0)
Conference Titles 20-10 Clemson (take away Dabo and we STILL win 17-10)

Bowl Records Clemson 22-19, VT 13-17, wins and appearances not close

All Americans 25-8 Clemson.......

First Round Draft Picks 30-10 Clemson...........

You continue to isolate the 5 game streak that occurred between 1998 and 2007 as if that stretch is all that exists in college football. We can talk history, or we can talk now, but for the love of god stop taking convenient slices of time to try and define your entire program.


Surprisingly, they've never been ranked #1 (AP)***


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 8:58 AM
 



2019 student level member

they do beat in one way, they started in 1892 and we didn't

[1]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:02 AM
 

start until 1896.

So they have more history!


Re: they do beat in one way, they started in 1892 and we didn't


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:47 AM
 

I assume you mean football because didnt our school start in 1889

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: For the VT lurkers, facts

[7]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:00 AM
 

Marcus Vick is the only reason why anyone has even heard of their program, despite what he did to those poor doggys he put them on the map.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: For the VT lurkers, facts


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:04 AM
 

Michael Vick.


You mean this guy?

[1]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:08 AM
 



2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

TIGER BALLS.


Hey, it's Ron Mexico!!!


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 11:13 PM
 

How'd them test results come out, buddy?

~JKB


Or this one?

[1]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:08 AM
 



2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

TIGER BALLS.


Half Time

[4]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:37 AM
 



2019 orange level membermilitary_donation.jpg

A coot will usually blink when hit in the head with a ball-peen hammer


Was never higher than 2


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:09 AM
 

In 115+ years of football, VT has spent Zero weeks as number 1.

2019 student level member

hook, line, & sinker...***


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:16 AM
 



2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Re: For the VT lurkers, facts

[1]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:19 AM
 

Matthew Vick - how do you not know this???

2019 purple level member

I for one am glad you are stopping. You are one of the most ignorant posters ever. You obviously think very highly of your own opinion, unlike the rest of us - RockHillTiger


Wait, which juan


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 12:19 PM
 

raped kids and which juan did dog fights?

I can't keep them straight.


Re: For the VT lurkers, facts

[1]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:09 AM
 

Balm, Marcus Vick was the other felon that played at VT. Go Tigers.

military_donation.jpg

Re: For the VT lurkers, facts

[6]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:03 AM
 

Facts are facts, but if you are sick, you'd better see a doctor. OR, stop painting with a broad brush. Some of us are older and do remember some real beat downs by Clemson teams. Younger folks, as in most endeavors, see things from a narrower perspective. If you feel good about those old records and then let mal-informed Virginia Tech fans hurt your feelings, well, so be it.

When all is said and done this year, Saturday's game is what counts. While I think you should be rated No. 1 and us closer to 20-25, we will both learn some facts about our current teams then.


Re: For the VT lurkers, facts

[4]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:05 AM
 

most of us are only concerned with the record over the last 4 contests. Personally I think you guys have a decent team and we will beat you twice this year.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: For the VT lurkers, facts


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:06 AM
 

Thanks for the confidence in us. I don't have so much yet.


Re: For the VT lurkers, facts


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:09 AM
 

you know miami is going to trip over their own ##### at least 2x, GT is good for 5 conference wins, UNC sucks this year, so that leaves VT by subtraction.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: For the VT lurkers, facts


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:56 AM
 

Well, there's actually an interesting set up there this weekend. Duke is undefeated too...and rifght now the top of the coastal. But they play Miami this weekend, so either Duke trips up, or this will be one of those Miami trip ups.


Re: For the VT lurkers, facts


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 11:21 AM
 

i have VT tripping up. outside of that I do not care

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

^^^has agnus peppered***


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:06 AM
 



2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: For the VT lurkers, facts


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 3:16 PM
 

Therein lies your problem... the younger football fans only know Clemson dominance over VT, and the older football fans know far more success than failure against VT.

null


Re: For the VT lurkers, facts

[1]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:07 AM
 

Kind of like the Chickens in Cola. They have one good streak that happened to be the best 5 years in the schools history and the best they come out with is 5th place rings and an total domination in the SECheat championship game. They keep crowing but no one is listening. I'm guessing it's a bird thing. Louisville attempted that a few weeks back as well. Go Tigers

military_donation.jpg

Who all said VTs program was"better"?

[1]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:51 AM
 

Seems like you are manufacturing anger.

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: For the VT lurkers, facts

[2]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 9:59 AM
 

Who exactly is "you" in your post? Your rant is actually pretty hilarious. I haven't seen ANY Hokie posters claiming our program and our history is better than Clemson. So for you to put so much time into this post is comical. Get a grip!!

I came over here to talk football and I found a few posters that were actually interested. But, for the most part, all I've seen is a bunch of posters beating their chests about their program, trash talking etc.. Maybe that's the purpose of this board but I was sorta hoping to have some decent conversations about the game, strategies etc..

I've been respectful on this board considering I'm a visitor and other than a few harmless jabs, you won't catch me taking anybody too seriously or making inflammatory remarks.

Would love to see a thread where we can discuss the game because, other than knowing your Dline is elite, I admit I don't know much more.


Re: For the VT lurkers, facts


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 10:29 AM
 

Welcome...you may find a few that want to discuss the game, and respect points of fact and opinion. However, from a general sense, you are definitely on the wrong Tiger board for adult conversation. Just a word of caution. This site is good for many things, but probably not what you're looking for. You might try Shakin the Southland for some actuall football discussion, sans hubris.

Good luck to y'all Saturday. I think it's going to be a great game and am a bit apprehensive. Go Tigers!


Re: For the VT lurkers, facts

[5]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 10:36 AM
 

Appreciate the advice. I was rooting for Clemson to win the NC last year for multiple reasons. And while I didn't think Dabo was a good hire back in '08, he's proven me wrong. As much of a cheerleader/rah rah guy as he may be, he's still smart enough to know how to hire good assistants and let them do their jobs. He knows his own strengths and works hard at what he does best.

One other thing....I love the fact Dabo understands how he can impact lives. I think this is a product of not forgetting from where he came. The handshakes with fans, kids, special needs kids....he's serving a purpose that goes beyond football and I think that's pretty cool.


Re: For the VT lurkers, facts


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 10:55 AM
 

VT is a program I respect. When Swinney took over our program he called VT the bell cow of the ACC. You guys, to the best of my knowledge, run a clean program. Frank Beamer is legendary in my opinion. Great coach, consistent, hard nosed but no National Championship. Tough break for him too. I'm glad my tigers have won two of them and I realize they are not easy for a non blue blood school to come by. We're fortunate at Clemson. Now for my take on the game. Clemson is further along as a program right now. More talented overall. VT is closing the gap but I think it will take a couple more years to catch up. That being said Clemson could still lose Saturday night but I seriously doubt we will. I do believe that no matter what happens Saturday night VT will be in the ACCCG and Clemson will likely be their opponent. Hopefully my tigers will win both again like they did in 2011. Just my .02. Enjoy the game.

military_donation.jpg

Re: For the VT lurkers, facts


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 12:32 PM
 

Ah yes STS where they spent a ton of time trashing Dabo.

2019 white level member

March 4th 2016- "Lee won't be here 4 years from today" - Viztiz


Re: For the VT lurkers, facts

[4]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 11:16 AM
 

If you paid attention to some of those you think are beating their chest, they are talking football and the game. It seems some of those posts though are going undiscussed, probably because it doesn't show to fair well for VT, much like it didn't for AU or Lousiville either.

Example, some of your fans are indeed trying to say that Louisville is a "one man team" and that AU's offense is not good. BUT, there are indeed advanced statistics that are done every year on all 129 FBS teams...statistics that don't just look at totals, don't just look at averages....it's called the S&P+ and the FEI, done by Bill COnnely on footballoutsiders.com. They also do them for the NFL. These statistics are quite advanced...they look at everything, from who a team plays, to when TD's were scored (garbage time vs not, pivotal plays from your own 10 vs a short drive from a short punt vs a short drive from a turnover, ability to finish drives, etc)....it measures teams on efficiency & explosiveness, and removes all the BS that can skew how teams look.

Explanations of it are here:
http://www2.kusports.com/definition/s_and_p/
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2015/2/9/8001137/college-football-advanced-stats-glossary

You can always view the S&P+ for each team here...
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa2017
It eventually will also look deep into offenses as a whole, defenses as a whole, and the trenches in their own set of stats (the offensive and defensive lines) after week 7. This is a good way at that point to gauge two team's lines' strengths and weaknesses and factors on how they might par against each other, as well as specifics to each offense and defense. Truely, it is the most advanced statistics if you want to see the realities of teams.

So I've posted this a few times, not one response in discussion from a Hokie yet...This is the current S&P+.


In this, you'll see Clemson is higher than VT in nearly all aspects other than special teams.
What you will also notice is that it shows that with the advanced metrics in play, Louisville and Auburn BOTH have more efficient and more explosive offenses...and that WVU (who played VT within 7) does at this time have a more explosive offense than Clemson. You'll also notice though that Clemson does indeed have a #3 level defense, and the best team the Hokies have played (that a few Hokies posting on here keep saying has a "good team") has a #85 defense out of 129 teams. And though Virginia Tech does have a good rated defense as well, it is not better than Auburn's. So this could easily lead to say that likely, Clemson will score more on VT than they did on Auburn, and VT will likely score no where near as much on Clemson as they did on WVU.

And if you look at all factors of that pared up to the actual games, Auburn, with a better offense per the S&P scored a whopping 0 TD's and 2 FG's (117 total yards)...Louisville also with a better offense scored only 2 TD's by the beginning of the 4th quarter before Clemson put in their 3rd string defense, and at that time, held Jackson and Louisville's offense to 157 yards total at that time). BC only scored 7 points, and Kent State only scored a FG. So against Clemson's first and second strings (counting in game subs), no offense (2 even rated decently better than VT's) has yet to score over 14 points. But Clemson scored more than that on Auburn's D, which is better than VT's per the S&P+.

Obviously, anything can happen in any game...but the metrics speak for themselves.

Now, just looking at the basic rankings though, just so you can see it's not just Clemson's defensive line:

Total defense:
Clemson: #3
WVU: #106
ECU: #129
ODU: #97

Rushing defense:
Clemson: #12
WVU: #113
ECU: #123
ODU: #90

Passing Efficiency Defense:
Clemson: #12
WVU: #55
ECU: #129
ODU: #85

Scoring Defense:
Clemson: #3
WVU: #67
ECU: #128
ODU: #87

Team sacks:
Clemson: #2
WVU: T-#105
ECU: T-#112
ODU: #3


Re: For the VT lurkers, facts

[1]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 12:28 PM
 

So you're gonna just talk numbers? Really? Numbers are numbers are numbers.....anybody with a brain can read numbers. I'm talking about honest, non-homer comments regarding your team.

For instance, I've brought up several things I'm concerned about with regards to this game....Bryant running the ball really well (along with your RB's), how thin we are on the defensive side of the ball, particularly at DT. On offense, we don't have a clear number two WR and our run game hasn't performed particularly well IMO. Add in the fact Jackson is RS freshman who hasn't seen elite Dline like Clemson in his short career.

Now what areas of your team are you concerned about the most? And please don't say "well, our DB's aren't that great....but but they're gonna kick ya'lls butt anyways." There has to be a unit that maybe isn't as experienced or isn't as talented as you would have hoped. If Bryant doesn't have a lot of success on the ground, does it concern you at all that he'd have to win the game through the air, in a loud and hostile environment? I ask these questions not to #### anybody off but just looking for honest feedback so when I watch the game, I can look for certain things. You can't see analytics and stats when you watch a game.


Re: For the VT lurkers, facts

[1]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 12:55 PM
 

I'll take a shot at what I see as concerns on our team that could be improved on...

1) Pass protection by the Oline
2) Inexperienced placekicker
3) Finding a TE than can be a reliable 3rd down option
4) Kelly Brayant going through progressions and not locking in to first option
5) Kickoff coverage (seems improved but I always worry about this with us)
6) Overconfidence of D (because talent and experience are not an issue... only thing that can stop our D is overconfidence)

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: For the VT lurkers, facts


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 1:39 PM
 

1, 2 and if we are going to throw any WR screens this week, we better have worked on our personel/execution to do so. Seeing Hunter get pushed into the receiver multiple times versus BC last week reminded me of the VT defense blowing up our WRs in Death Valley back when Spence was our OC under Bowden. Last week wasn't near as bad as what VT did in 2007. I was so angry with Spence that game. Our WRs were getting annihilated when VT wasn't jumping the route for the pick; not trying to revist that at all.

2019 white level member

Re: For the VT lurkers, facts

[1]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 1:57 PM
 

I think the pass pro issue is probably offset by Bryant's mobility. Haven't really watched any of your games but from what I have seen, Bryant has great wheels if things breakdown. Sucks about your placekicker for sure. I think an elite Dline can mask any other issues that a defense may have (not that you have issues elsewhere on D). But if they plug the middle and contain the opposing offense's run game, and get a good pass rush, it's hard to have success against them as an offense.

Our only hope is that our OC and Fuente have a solid game plan to take some pressure off of Jackson.....ie. get the ball out of his hands fairly quickly, call some well timed mis-direction and not get him hurt. Given the talent level on Clemson's D, other than obviously being able to execute plays, if the VT offense can catch the Clemson defenders guessing, they have a chance to have some success.

Defensively, I'm super worried about Bryant running for 100 yards plus and then getting beat over the top on play action. We have always struggled against mobile QB's. And like it's been mentioned, we are not deep, AT ALL.

We are at least a few years away from coming into a game with a top opponent and feeling pretty good about our chances. We're currently paying the price for poor recruiting at the end of Beamer's tenure.


The more misdirection you run, the better your chances


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 11:07 PM
 

Misdirection and having lots of looks may be the only way to score more than 14 on our defense. A mobile QB helps against us as well. We are vulnerable to wheel routes and play action - although we're better against those than we were 2 years ago.

Your special teams also needs to score to beat us. Which is the one phase of the game you probably have a clear advantage.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: For the VT lurkers, facts


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 2:03 PM
 

If you are just liking for player assessment, that's hard to gauge...especially with some of the personnel changes that are being made. For instance, Feaster and Etienne sound like they are about to get much more reps, so for me to say our run offense we've seen this far early in the game will be the same would be hard to do. Could look completely different in this one.

Above mentioned the main concern on Bryant, but again, never know if that RB change could affect how the defense reacts, and/or our pass blocking issues.

TE still is a questionable...Richard had shown well in a few, and not so much in a few. WR's, no real worry there as long as Kelly is on point. OL, it's mainly the protection on the right side that's been some concern.

Defense, only concernss are mainly in depth with some guys coming back from injury (how well will they hold up), and/or playing too confident.


Weakest position is obviously placekicking...


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 2:17 PM
 

losing Huegel has not really made an impact on the team yet because we have yet to be in a situation where we really need 3 points. I think we'll see a missed kick or two this weekend. That could be a huge blow to momentum.

That being said, we may be able to enforce our will running the ball and control the game early. I think what you will see is heavy doses of the run early for us to try and generate offense without having KB force the ball downfield. Last week it took us a while to get things rolling, but when we did, it was a thing of beauty. I think VT would need to sell out to stop the run early and force our hand to abandon the run and force KB to win this game with his arm.

He is more than capable of doing it, but we have not seen him in a situation where he has to go get us a TD by throwing the ball during an entire drive a la Deshaun in the NCCG. I'll admit, I'm nervous about Lane Stadium at night and how KB will respond. I think he has a lot of confidence from the win at Louisville earlier in the year, but this will be different environment.

I think VT is a really strong team. That WVA win is looking better and better. Fuente was the best hire of the last couple of seasons' openings and he will restore your program to greatness. I still look at VT like we are the underdog because I was in high school/college during that streak when "Beamer ball" was at its height. I remember y'all came into DV in 2008 and beat the brakes off us. That included at least 2 huge kickoff returns. I think this will be the best game of the entire weekend's slate of football and we'll win by 3 because I'll give the edge to our defense.

However, this game might as well be a "pick em" and it could absolutely go either way. Thanks for stopping by and don't worry about some of the puffing on here. That's most of the "supporters". Us fans actually went to Clemson...

2019 purple level member

Discussion not facts


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 3:05 PM
 

Here's my take without all the numbers. Our Oline is an upgrade from last year. 4 of the 5 are returning starters who have not regressed but improved and we replaced the center who apparently was not NFL material. Check the snap count and see that we have been liberally substituting and moving guys around to get more experience. So we have a better Oline than the one that won the natty. Dline that won the natty is also back. Wilkins playing a more natural position. Ferrell blossomed late but starting where he left off. Also upgrade from last year. We have been using 4 running backs to replace Gallman. It seems to be down to 2 main backs now. Feaster is bigger and faster than Wayne. He is learning more each game. ETN is a freak. Our committee brings more to the table than Wayne. As Feaster and ETN continue to develop they have the ability to surpass Gallman. This is a drop off from last year for now but not worried. Tight end Richards is a better blocker than Leggitt but not quite the receiver. This may be a plus because we are running more. At linebacker we lost the heart and soul in Boulware but he too was rejected by NFL. We have replaced him with a bigger more athletic guy in 57. ODaniel, Joseph and company is not a drop off from the natty LBs. Their play so far shows this. At DB big losses with Jadar and Cordrea. Mullen is proving to be a shut down corner and Muse and Simmons are playing lights out at safety along with the returning starters. No big busts yet against the first team backs. The narrative before the Louisville game was that Lamar was a much improved passer from last year. If it is true, it didn't show against our backs. Our receivers are a bunch of "frisbee kitchen dogs". Nodody can cover Renfro. Cain can outrun single man coverage. RR is all over. We regularly use 9 receivers in a game before we get to garbage time. We will run DBs ragged. We don't have Mike Williams but nobody does. At QB Kelly is running more than DW4 did last year. But DW4 ran for over 1000 yds his sophomore year. Kelly will not take the chances with the ball that DW4 did. He can throw all of the required passes. Check his film. There was a moment on the camera after a bad throw in the Loserville game when they focused on KB. He slowly closed his eyes and took a deep breath. He is learning about composure and forgetting the last play. We will be good at QB.
Do the Hokies have a chance? Sure, but don't expect a drop off from our talent last year that took home the trophy.


Re: Discussion not facts


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 3:29 PM
 

Appreciate all of the feedback. I didn't suspect there'd be any drop off in talent, just new players taking over. When you can recruit well, rebuilding isn't the best descriptor....it's reloading.

As far as your kicker situation, I agree, it's probably a non-factor until maybe the playoffs when it's more likely you'll be in a dog fight where every point counts.


Re: For the VT lurkers, facts


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 1:01 PM
 

FEI And SP are misleading this early in the season as they are still taking into account preseason rankings.


Re: For the VT lurkers, facts

[1]
Posted: Sep 28, 2017 1:47 PM
 

You guys look good on the field and it shows on paper. I don't think any Hokie other than a troll or serious Homer would come here and contend that this year's body of work so far compares favorably to yours. You have been tested by much better teams. We have not, so therefore, I do not feel we as yet have a clear handle of what we are capable of doing - if that is even any more than we have already shown. With three or four freshmen on offense and a lack of depth on both sides of the ball, I am interested to see what we can do against you. It's a long season from here on out. If we can at least make a showing, that could portend a rematch in December, and that would put us ahead of schedule as we attempt to rebuild.


Dang


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 11:33 AM
 

that hurt.


Thursday night games in Blacksburg....


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 11:59 AM
 

...just ain't what they used to be.


Re: Thursday night games in Blacksburg....


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 2:02 PM
 

Haven't had a marquee Thursday night game in a long time. Would have to go back to #2 BC in 2007 and #10 Clemson in 2006.....oops. Thursday nights are huge here, but Saturday nights are much much bigger. Looking forward to it


VT hasn't beaten a ranked team at home since 2009***


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 2:15 PM
 

Doesn't sound like a difficult place to play according to recent history.

2019 student level member

Re: VT hasn't beaten a ranked team at home since 2009***


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 2:21 PM
 

Boy, that comment was pure genius! Did you come up with that one all by yourself?

Death Valley wasn't a particularly difficult venue during Bowden's tenure and Dabo's early tenure either was it? Rome wasn't built in a day nor are football programs having to rebuild.


Don't recall going 7+ years without beating a ranked team at home


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 3:58 PM
 

I was referring to the poster that said Thurs night games are big but Sat night games are bigger at Lane stadium. Don't let the facts get in the way.

2019 student level member

Re: Don't recall going 7+ years without beating a ranked team at home


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 4:04 PM
 

Haven't had a marquee Thursday night game in a long time. Would have to go back to #2 BC in 2007 and #10 Clemson in 2006.....oops. Thursday nights are huge here, but Saturday nights are much much bigger. Looking forward to it


Here's his post. Nowhere in the post does he say the games are difficult....YOU were the one that said "difficult". He merely said they were big games. So maybe you should look in the mirror with regards to your comment....or better yet, brush up on your reading comprehension.


So, back to the facts


Posted: Sep 28, 2017 4:08 PM
 

That's a pretty lousy streak, huh? Thoughts?

2019 student level member

Replies: 49  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Boston College
FOR SALE: I have 3 tickets for sale in section TDE, row F, seats 32,34,& 36...Tickets are $75 each...Will also...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
5565 people have read this post