Click here for TSL's Game Recap

The first question you ask yourself in the wake of this loss is this: How can a team get four touchdowns and a school-record 241 yards rushing on 30 carries from their star tailback � and lose?

After all, this VT team is built around the running game. A dominating, 8-yard-per carry performance ought to punch their ticket to a win, if not a big win. After all, every team that has rolled up that kind of rushing yardage against the Hokies the last two years has won, sometimes easily. So why didn't Tech win this game?

Someone asked me that Sunday, and I told them, like with all games, the answers are simple and complex. The simple answers: turnovers, execution, and not getting the calls and bounces. The complex answers: coaching strategy and the team not being put in a position to win late.

I'm not going to go heavy in the film analysis, because I think this game can be analyzed without going to the film. The major issues here are more statistical and strategic, I think, and I don't need to analyze VT's blocking or defense on particular plays to give my thoughts on this game.

First of all, you won't see a discussion of the officiating here. While I feel Justin Hamilton was interfered with on a critical fourth and four late in the game (click the photo to the right for proof), there were some bad calls that went both ways. Two incompletions that I can recall were ruled as receptions, one for each team, and one reception -- Ernest Wilford's gut-wrenching, topsy-turvy, made-for-injury flip -- was ruled an incompletion.

If you want to make officiating an issue -- and certainly, it was -- then file it under "execution," as in, "The refs didn't execute to VT's benefit." But I will leave the officiating out of it, because except for the non-call on the interference by Hamilton, the officiating balanced out. And when the officiating balances out, you need to take a look at what the Hokies could have done better to get the win.

On that note �

Note: this section, when originally posted, was in error because it didn't include the last fumble by Pittsburgh. That oversight has been corrected. Thanks to those who pointed it out. -- Will

VT turned the ball over four times to Pittsburgh's three in this game -- but how much did the turnovers really hurt? The previous game against Miami, the Hokies got 21 points off of Miami four turnovers, and the Canes got zero points off of Tech's two turnovers. What was the breakdown in this game of VT's four turnovers to Pitt's three?

Here are the turnovers and the results:

Pitt fumble, 8:34 to go 1st quarter, VT leading 7-3: Hokies take over on VT 49, drive inside Pitt 10 and fumble it back.

Hokies fumble (Jones), 4:47 to go 1st quarter, VT leading 7-3: Pitt takes over on Pitt 7, goes three and out and punts.

Hokies fumble (Humes) , 6:00 to go 2nd quarter, VT leading 14-10: Pitt takes over on Hokie 33 scores in 5 plays.

Hokies interception, 2:44 to go 2nd quarter, Pitt leading 17-14: Pitt takes over on the VT 41 and throws an interception near the end of the half.

Pitt interception, 0:42 to go in the first half, Pitt leading 17-14: Tech takes possession on VT 20, runs out the clock.

Pitt fumble, 12:48 to go in the fourth quarter, VT leading 28-24: Tech takes possession on their own 32-yard line, winds up punting after a short drive.

Hokies interception near end of game, Pitt leading 31-28: Pitt takes a knee, runs out the clock.

Although there were seven turnovers, only one resulted in a score by the other team. The Panthers outscored VT 7-0 in points off turnovers, and though that's not bad, hey, VT lost by three points.

Beyond the points off the turnovers, the Hokies cost themselves a near-sure touchdown with the Kevin Jones fumble inside the ten-yard line in the first quarter. Tech had a chance to go up 14-3 and was cramming the ball down Pittsburgh's throat, and they let them back up off the mat.

Then there was the "punt that was like a turnover," as one message board poster said. Early in the second quarter, facing 4th and 16 from the VT 8-yard line, Tech punter Vinnie Burns, who had an awful night, shanked one 22 yards out to the 30-yard line. Pitt jumped on the opportunity like a teeny bopper on a Justin Timberlake sweatband, scoring in just three plays to go up 10-7.

So, almost up 14-3 midway through the first quarter, the Hokies were instead down 10-7 early in the second.

I thought the Hokie defense did a good job containing Pitt's offense ... until the last drive.

Let's start with Larry Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald had a catch for 41 yards on Pitt's first offensive play of the game, after Eric Green slipped and fell on the turf. And on Pittsburgh's last drive, Fitzgerald had three catches for 49 yards.

Between Fitzgerald's first catch and the last Pitt drive, in over 50 minutes of game time, he had just 4 catches for 18 yards and a touchdown. Meanwhile, Kevin Jones romped for 233 of his 241 yards and all four of his touchdowns.

If you had told me that Jones would rush for 241 and four TDs, and Fitzgerald would have just 108 yards receiving and only one TD, I would have predicted a 21-point Hokie victory, at least.

But I digress. The Hokies contained Fitzgerald pretty well for most of the game, and in fact, held the Pitt offense somewhat in check, giving up just two drives of more than 45 yards. Until the last drive, Pitt only had one long drive, a 9-play, 80 yard drive that put them up 24-14. Their first two touchdown "drives" were 30 yards and 33 yards, evidence that the short field the Hokies gave the Panthers killed VT. That's the other thing about turnovers: they kill you in the field position game-within-a-game.

While Fitzgerald was held in check, other players on Pitt's offense weren't. QB Rod Rutherford went 24-of-31 (77.4%) for 303 yards, 2 TDs, and just one interception (a great play by Mikal Baaqee that could just have easily been a touchdown). Pitt's second-leading receiver for the season, tight end Kris Wilson, had six catches for 111 yards and a TD. Tailback Jawan Walker and fullback Lousaka Polite had a total of 20 carries for 107 yards (5.4 ypc) and a touchdown.

Pitt did a good job of using Wilson and Polite in particular as secondary weapons, with Fitzgerald not performing up to his usual standards.

What a schizophrenic section I'm writing here. They held, them, they didn't, they stopped them, they didn't. I can't make up my mind.

If nothing, Pitt was opportunistic. Given the short field, they scored both times. And in one key play during one of those short drives, they converted a 4th and 8 from the Hokie 32 to the 2. It was a good play call, as VT crashed the line and Pitt went against tendencies, running the option for a long first down.

On another Pitt scoring drive, the one that put them up 24-14, they converted a 3rd and 7 and a 3rd and 13. The first conversion was a great play by Pitt receiver Greg Lee (more on that later), and the second was a 14-yard pass to Pincell Brockenbrough, on a play in which VT was offsides, anyway.

To sum it up, Pitt didn't exactly dominate the Hokies offensively, but they used their secondary weapons well, and they were opportunistic, with the exception of the interception by Baaqee late in the first half.

And that last drive � ugh.

You can't really dress up VT's defensive performance on Pitt's last drive, which started from their own 30 with 4:10 left. The Hokies played soft and passive, and it burned them. The Panthers didn't even face a third down until the two-yard run Lousaka Polite scored on.

The drive started with a 28-yard completion to Fitzgerald, a play in which he ran free through the VT zone, and no defender got within five yards of him until he caught the ball. Suddenly with four minutes to go, the Panthers were on Tech's 42-yard line, and I'll say one thing about that: the clock quit being a factor right then and there.

The next play was a 12-yard completion to Fitzgerald that took the ball to the Hokie 30. Contrary to popular belief, the Hokies did blitz on this last drive, and it happened on this play. Tech brought Mikal Baaqee and the whip linebacker (I believe -- the tape wasn't clear) from the right side of the Pitt offense, and fortunately for Pitt, the Panthers had their tight end on that side and kept a running back in to block (the other back went into a pattern out to the left). Baaqee and the other blitzer were picked up cleanly, and Rutherford had plenty of time to make his throw to Fitzgerald.

That was Tech's 12th (by my count) and last blitz of the game, and it ruined Bud Foster's appetite for blitzing for the rest of the game. From that point on, VT laid back in a zone and rushed four linemen, counting on the DL to pressure Rutherford.

From the 30-yard line, the Panthers threw an incomplete dump-off to the running back, and then Fitzgerald scrambled from the 30 to the Hokie 18 yard line. Perhaps sensing fatigue in his defensive linemen, Bud Foster (or DL coach Charley Wiles, whoever is responsible), substituted the backup defensive line, putting in Tim Sandidge, Noland Burchette, and Darryl Tapp, and moving Nathaniel Adibi to tackle for the injured Jason Lallis.

The next play was another pass to Fitzgerald, and the referees ruled it a catch at the Hokie 9-yard line, despite replays showing that the ball hit the ground.

The Panthers ran Polite up the middle to the Tech 4-yard line for a first down, then ran him up the middle again on 1st and goal for no gain. VT substituted the starting DL back into the game and got a nice stop from Vinnie Fuller and Mikal Baaqee on a toss sweep to Tim Murphy, who was stopped at the 2-yard line.

On 3rd and goal, the Panthers again sent Polite up the middle, and Vegas Robinson came in unblocked and met him in the hole on the 3-yard line. Polite brushed him off and dragged him into the end zone for the game-winning score with 47 seconds left.

Several things jump out about this drive: VT's lack of QB pressure, the soft zone coverage, and Frank Beamer's unwillingness to use his remaining two timeouts to leave his team enough time to score after a Pitt TD.

Regarding the lack of QB pressure and the soft zone coverage � what do you expect me to say? It didn't work, and there's not a fan on the planet who thinks that kind of defense is a good move at that point in the ball game. Only football coaches seem to like the prevent defense. What it did was cough up 52 yards in Pitt's first four plays (though in fairness, VT did blitz once in that stretch), and one of those plays was a drop of a well-thrown pass to the running back.

Defensively, VT just didn't put up much of a fight, with the coup de grace coming when Tech's 250-pound redshirt senior linebacker met the running back in the hole and didn't wrap up.

As for the timeouts not being used, Coach Beamer admitted in his post-game comments that was a mistake, telling the Roanoke Times, "As soon as the third-down play started, I should have called timeout right then."

I assume that he means the instant Pitt failed to score on 2nd and goal and was facing 3rd and goal. There was 1:30 on the clock at that point, and Beamer's right, he should have stopped the clock, because at that point, the clock was no longer Pitt's enemy -- those last two yards and the Hokie defense were, so VT should have preserved the clock. Instead, it ran down to just over 50 seconds, and Pitt scored on the next play, leaving the Hokies 47 seconds to work with, instead of about a minute and a half.

I'm reminded of a Dolphins game I watched years ago, when Don Shula was coaching and Dan Marino was the QB. The Fins were winning, but the other team was driving downfield easily on Miami's often-porous defense. As the other team approached the goal line, Shula spent all three timeouts, and when they scored, Marino had well over a minute remaining, instead of the game being over. To make a long story short, Marino led the team downfield to the winning score, and Shula was lauded for his clock management, for giving his best player, Marino, the last shot at winning the game.

By this point, with 264 games worth of experience as a head coach, Beamer should know how to manage the end of a close game better than that, but it's not as if his failure to call a timeout cost the Hokies the game. It was just one sign of many of the end of a game not being managed well by the Tech coaching staff.

A lot of the post-game talk also centered on Beamer's decision to go for it on 4th and 4 from the Pitt 30 yard line with just over four minutes to go. I don't think it was a bad call. That would have been a 47-yard field goal, and though Carter Warley hit a 46-yarder and a 47-yarder as a freshman back in 2000, he hasn't sniffed that distance since then.

The other alternative would have been to punt, and if VT had done that and Pitt had driven, say, 80 or 90 yards for the win, instead of 70, you would have been screaming for Beamer to have gone for it on 4th down.

And the very next day, on Sunday, I saw Bill Parcells opt out of a 46-yard field goal and go for it on 4th and one, so Beamer's not alone in his thinking.

I like the call to go for it, and the play call was one I don't have a problem with. The primary option on the play was fullback Doug Easlick in the flat, and the Panthers were all over him. Vick went with a fade route to Justin Hamilton, and it was a beautifully thrown ball, but Hamilton couldn't catch it because he was interfered with, as Pitt's "Tutu" Ferguson got a hand on Hamilton's left arm and pulled it down. Justin was unable to make the one-armed catch, and the refs, of course, were unable to make the call (color me shocked).

Some argue that Kevin Jones should have gotten the handoff -- put the ball in the hands of your best player, and see what he can do. Maybe, maybe not. Jones had just had three straight runs of 4, 1, and 1 yards. And if it's brilliant for Pitt to go away from their tendencies and run an option on 4th and eight, why is it stupid for Tech to go against their tendencies and throw a pass on 4th and four? They had burned a blitzing Pitt defense with a pass to Cedric Humes in the flat early in the game, and OC Bryan Stinespring no doubt thought it could work again. I can't fault him for it.

The Hokies did what they had to do to make the play. But Tutu Ferguson stayed with Hamilton, made the only play he could, and got away with it, because the refs blew the (no-) call.

Back to the topic of blitzing: as best I could, I noted each blitz the Hokies used in the game, and the results. I did this in agonizing detail in last year's Pitt analysis, if memory serves correctly, and due to time constraints, I won't go into as much detail here.

I counted 12 blitzes by the Hokies. If you define "success" on a blitz as a gain of three or fewer yards on a running play and five or fewer yards on a passing play, or a sack or an incompletion on a passing play, then the Hokie blitzes were successful only four times. Four out of 12. The results of those successful blitzes were:

• 2nd and 11, rush, stuffed for no gain.
• 1st and 10, pass, incomplete deep.
• 3rd and 11, 3-yard completion.
• 1st and 10, pass, incomplete to the flat.

The other eight times, the Panthers beat the Hokie blitz a myriad of ways.

• 2nd and 9, rush, right up the gut for 14 yards.
• 2nd and 9, swing pass to tailback for 11 yards (called back because of penalty).
• 4th and 8, rush, 30-yard option run around left end.
• 1st and 10, pass, rollout away from pressure and complete for 10 yards.
• 3rd and 13, pass, complete for 14 yards.
• 1st and 10, pass, scramble for 11 yard gain (Baaqee missed tackle).
• 2nd and 7, pass, gain of 6 yards.
• 1st and 10, pass, 12-yard completion.

Several notes on the blitzes:

• VT blitzed seven times in the first half. Four were successful, three were not.

• VT blitzed five times in the second half. None were successful, and four gave up first downs. The fifth resulted in a 3rd and 1, and the Hokies stopped Pitt on that 3rd down.

• On VT's 12 blitzes, they gave up six first downs, and a 7th would have been a first down, but it was called back because of a penalty.

Basically, with their talented coaching staff and an offense stocked with eight senior starters and Larry Fitzgerald, the Pittsburgh Panthers offense knows how to handle almost anything you throw at them.

As a side note not related to the blitz statistics, Pitt started 15 seniors overall, and three juniors. VT started ten seniors and eight juniors (and brought junior DeAngelo Hall of the bench). That's a total of 18 senior/junior starters on each team. Read into that what you will, but my interpretation is that you can't blame youth for VT's inability to beat Pitt.

One thing I liked about the Hokies in this game was their resiliency, and the way they answered Pitt's scores (except for the last one).

Here's what the Hokies did whenever Pitt scored:

Pitt 3, VT 0: Imoh returns kickoff to the Pitt 49-yard line, Hokies score in four plays. VT 7, Pitt 3.

Pitt 10, VT 7: Hokies motor right down the field, score on the strength of 40 yards on five KJ runs and an 18-yard pass to Jeff King (great throw by Vick). VT 14, Pitt 10.

Pitt 17, VT 14: Hokies throw an interception by Vick, Pitt takes over on the VT 41 and throws an interception in the end zone. Scores remains Pitt 17, VT 14.

Pitt 24, VT 14: Hokies respond with 80-yard KJ run, stuff Panthers on three and out, then score from 59 yards out in 2 plays. VT 28, Pitt 24.

Pitt 31, VT 28: Hokies throw an interception.

Three of the first four times Pitt scored, the Hokies came right back. I like that. Unfortunately, that statistic, along with KJ's 241 yards rushing, gets thrown on the trash heap of reasons why VT should have won.

Sometimes after losses, I like to mull over the plays that didn't go VT's way that could have made a difference.

We've already talked about the non-call on the interference, so I'll leave that one out. How about these? -- if they had gone VT's way, the Hokies might by eye-balling a BCS bowl right now:

4:00 to go, first quarter: Rod Rutherford scrambles and is hit, and he fumbles inside the Pitt 20. VT's Noland Burchette has a great shot at it, but doesn't recover. Pitt winds up punting, and the Hokies take over at their own 42 and don�t score.

2:22 to go, first quarter, 3rd and 8: Bryan Randall throws to David Clowney. Clowney catches it, turns to run for a sure first down, and slips and falls at midfield for a 7-yard gain. Hokies punt.

14:00 to go, second quarter: Vick, just in, rolls out and hits Ernest Wilford in the hands at the VT 31-yard line. Wilford drops it. Hokies later punt from their 8-yard line, and Vinnie Burns shanks it to give Pitt possession on the VT 30. The Panthers score to go up 10-7.

12:00 to go, third quarter: Hokies rush Rutherford, force a fumble on the Pitt 45, and the Panthers O-line recovers. Pitt later punts and pins the Hokies at their own three-yard line.

3:00 to go third quarter, 3rd and 7: Rutherford throws across the middle, and the play is read perfectly by VT safety Jimmy Williams. Williams goes for the ball, arrives at the same time as the Pitt receiver Greg Lee � and Lee makes the catch on the Pitt 45. The Panthers go on to score the TD that puts them up 24-14.

Same drive, 2:00 to go third quarter, 3rd and 13: Hokies give up the long completion for the first down.

• When was the last time you saw two superstars as classy as Kevin Jones and Larry Fitzgerald on the field at the same time? Neither one is an embarrassment to the game, unlike 57 players I can name off the top of my head (#1 being Kellen Winslow).

• If you're still criticizing VT's offensive line, God help you. Those guys are pretty darn good. Jon Dunn is big-time improved, Jake Grove is a keeper, Jacob Gibson is solid, Jimmy Martin is a good one, and Will Montgomery has come out of nowhere to be, I think, the second-best lineman on the team. They overpowered Miami and dominated Pittsburgh.

• Bad night by Vinnie Burns, who had been having a strong season. His first punt was 46 yards. The others? 17, 21, 28 (fair catch on the Pitt 20), 24 (downed at the Pitt 15). Ouch.

• Andy Lee, the Big East's leading punter coming in, didn't fare well, either. He had punts of 42, 34, 39, 35, 35, and 38 yards. While Burns would take those stats over his, that's a mediocre night for Lee.

• Pitt's lack of physicality in the secondary really showed against Jones. He even ran over their linebackers.

• Speaking of KJ, you've got four more games to watch him. Live it up. Too bad the guy's hitting his stride at the end of his third year in Blacksburg, in which he will become draft eligible. Sigh. And I said you guys would never forget Lee Suggs.

• VT kickoffs and coverage were poor. Pittsburgh returned VT's kicks to the 29, 24, 28, 43, and 25-yard lines, for an average starting position of the 30-yard line. Not good. The culprit? Brandon Pace's five kickoffs went to the 9, 5, 5, 7, and 2-yard lines.

• One of my favorite play calls: After VT closed to 24-21 on KJ's 80-yard TD, and then stopped Pitt, the Hokies threw it deep on their first play from scrimmage. That's a great job of going for the jugular, and it resulted in a 46-yard catch by Ernest Wilford, followed by a 13-yard KJ run for a TD.

• With 10:41 to go, VT got a delay of game penalty that looked like a quick whistle. The ball was snapped before the little play-clock in the corner of the TV screen expired, and those clocks are generally pretty close to the field clock. Hard to say, though, without seeing the field clock.

This is one of those maddening losses in which the Hokies needed one more play -- one more play -- for a victory. It seems as if there have been a lot of these games for VT, particularly in the last three seasons.

As with the West Virginia loss, I will refrain from making grand, sweeping statements about the program, based on this game. I am planning a "state of the program" series of articles at the conclusion of the regular season and prior to the bowl game, in which I'll address the aspects of the program that have been highlighted and lowlighted by the last three seasons.

At this point, the Hokies are 7-2, with a 3-2 Big East Conference record, and they appear to be bound for a third- or fourth-place finish in the conference � again, for the third year in a row. There are many reasons for this, and I'll address them in the "state of the program" series, or at least give my opinion.

Tech's prospects for finishing 10-2 are very good. Temple is up next, and they are simply awful, a patchwork quilt of JUCO transfers assembled after the Owls lost 13 starters to graduation last year. Temple ranks last in the Big East in total offense, total defense, rushing offense, rushing defense, scoring offense, scoring defense, passing efficiency, and pass efficiency defense.

After that comes Boston College. The game is in Lane Stadium, and the Hokies, simply put, have BC's number. As promised last year, I will never pick BC to beat Virginia Tech.

Then a trip to Virginia to end the season. The Cavaliers have a very good QB in Matt Schaub, and a great placekicker, but not much else. Their rushing offense is struggling (79th in the nation), their defense is inconsistent due to youth and weakness at the safety position (the defense is 73rd in the country), and their receiving corps is young and devoid of playmakers.

The Hokies should, and I emphasize should, close out with three wins, a 10-2 record, and a 5-2 finish in the Big East. That will put them in the Top 10 to close the season, and while that would result in a phenomenal bowl bid in the SEC or even the ACC, the Big East can send the Hokies to Phoenix for the Insight Bowl or back to San Francisco for the Diamond Walnut Bowl again.

I had high hopes for this Hokie team, after the win over Miami. A BCS bowl was well within their sights. It's just now sinking in that a BCS bowl is not a possibility anymore, and the alternatives are not attractive. Hopefully, the Gator Bowl will take a shine to the Hokies and pit them against someone interesting from the ACC, like NC State, Maryland, or Georgia Tech. Or failing that, the Continental Tire Bowl, against one of those three teams.

This loss to Pittsburgh is disappointing, very disappointing. In the last three seasons, the Hokies have dropped close games -- final margin 8 points or less -- to Syracuse (twice), Miami, Pittsburgh (twice), and West Virginia. They have won just one close Big East game in the last three years -- a 28-23 win over BC last season -- and not a single one against the quartet of WVU, Syracuse, Pitt, and Miami. VT needs to look no farther than the closest mirror to find the reasons why they haven't finished in the top two in the Big East since 2000.

When it's crunch time, you've got to win, or it's the Diamond Walnut Bowl for you.

We'll return later this week with a Temple preview.

TechSideline Pass Home