Old Article from Chris Brown on the Hokie Defense
I downloaded the first Clemson vs. VaTech game to get a feel how VaTech plays. One thing that I noticed right away is that VaTech looks like they run a 4-2-5 or a Nickel. I did some searching and came up with this article from Chris Brown on Dr. Saturday's blog.
Essentially, VaTech started out with a 4-4 Cover 2 and slowly evolved to a defense that looks more like a Cover 4. I'd say it's a must read for anyone who wants to scout our next opponent.
EDIT: Actually, now that I read through some of the comments, I realize why this seems so familiar. At first, I thought it was the 4-2-5 like at TCU, but now I realize that it's more like what we had with the spur and bandit in 2009 in terms of alignment and personnel, but a different philosophy.
December 6th, 2011 at 12:33 AM ^
please forward to Brady Hoke & staff
December 6th, 2011 at 12:39 AM ^
Brady Hoke & staff are going to show Frank Beamer & staff how to play defense in the game of football. This would only infuriate our new, defensive-minded overlords.
December 6th, 2011 at 12:39 AM ^
And staff can do a better job than some guy on the Internet. No offense to the OP, this is good for me.
December 6th, 2011 at 12:44 AM ^
I think Hoke and co. can do better on their own too. But in defense of Chris Brown, aka "some guy on the Internet," he is a pretty respected blogger on football, who breaks down the x's and o's for the average fan on Grantland and the NYT, as well as runs his own blog.
December 6th, 2011 at 8:34 AM ^
A guy on the internet! Well then!
December 6th, 2011 at 12:55 AM ^
This is looking to be a very Hoke-y match up.
December 6th, 2011 at 10:12 AM ^
Boo!!
December 6th, 2011 at 1:15 AM ^
There is a Clemson / VT every snap video here if anyone is interested for a preview of the defense.
If the Clemson wides didn't have the dropsies, that score would have been more lopsided. Boyd is a mobile QB, but nowhere close to Denard in terms of his ability to run.
December 6th, 2011 at 1:25 AM ^
Thanks for that. It saved me a bunch of time for the quick review. I'll still probably go with the full game to break it down further, but you are right about how lopsided that game was. I was not impressed with that defense. If they play that way against Michigan, Fitz and Denard are going to have career days.
December 6th, 2011 at 8:32 AM ^
Is Clemson's wides give the play away by not releasing on the run play. I mean they are just straight up blocking at the line. Also, they don't seem to know where the first down marker is-poor field awareness. We are a much smarter football team. Watch the Ohio game, here, and you can see what I'm talking about.
December 6th, 2011 at 11:14 AM ^
I'd be careful about underestimating a Frank Beamer/Bud Foster Va. Tech defense. As Brian noted the other day, this year's group is 12th in yardage and 8th in scoring defense. From the game clips above against Clemson, they look like a sound unit to me. (Granted, Clemson's offense looks mediocre, and Taj Boyd is no Denard...) In the video it seems their D line gets a good rush -- they have 38 sacks on the year (our D had 28), so let's hope the O-line (particularly Huyge) can do a good job in pass protection. Va Tech also had 15 interceptions. The key, as always, will be Denard making good decisions and taking care of the football. If he plays as well as he did against OSU, we'll put up enough points to outscore the Hokies' meh offense.
December 6th, 2011 at 11:47 AM ^
Clemsons Scoring offense rank, this:
27 Clemson
Hokies other opponents scoring offense ranks,this(Horror left off):
19 Georgia Tech
62 Wake Forest
64 Miami (YTM)
88 Virginia
93 Duke
98 Marshall
112 Boston College
So 3 of the top 4 offenses that they have faced have put up more than 20 points on them, and they haven't really faced much offensive fire power. I'd say that the defense isn't all that this season, and I have a lot of Hokie's in my neighborhood who agree. They are pretty much penciling this in as a loss with benefits.
December 6th, 2011 at 4:46 PM ^
There is a difference between saying not impressed and that they are bad. I don't see them as a top defense. I see them as maybe a top 40, just from what I saw in the video and without looking at stats. Keep in mind that I am judging them in one of their two worst performances of the year.
Yes, their DL was getting some pressure, but they were also letting the RB and QB get some pretty nice runs off. Based on what I see in this video, I would guess this will go somewhat like the Nebraska game minus the turnovers on ST, so our score won't be so high.
December 6th, 2011 at 1:27 AM ^
He showed flashes of brilliance in the Ohio game. I hope it's a sign of his maturation and taking what the defense is going to give him.
December 6th, 2011 at 1:49 AM ^
was that the Hokie D is susceptible to a QB that can hurt you with his legs and his arm. Should spell success for UM.
December 6th, 2011 at 1:54 AM ^
Is that ever not true?
December 6th, 2011 at 7:56 AM ^
Observation!
December 6th, 2011 at 9:31 AM ^
December 6th, 2011 at 11:40 AM ^
Only 2 linebackers - this pleases me - one less guy for Fitz to have to run through to get into the secondary.
Fitz will have a big game, and we'll have 250+ on the ground.
December 6th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^
Clemson's O just does not look that scary to me. Boyd looks to be Denard-ish in the passing game (many overthrows) with less run ability. (He does seem to avoid forcing some balls that Denard might.) Their run game is less effective than ours, but they may have a bit more playmakers at wide-reciever.
I obviously haven't watched many VT or Clemson games - so perhaps Clemson was playing pass-happy early because they knew they couldn't run on that defense. Also, I would also expect VT to play a bit differently against Denard's skill set as a runner.
December 6th, 2011 at 1:35 PM ^
Boyd sailed the ball on a lot of plays. He was 13 for 32 (40%) and 204 yds. Even with numbers like that they still won by 3 scores. I don't see Denard putting up numbers that bad.