As amusing as that might be -- I certainly got a kick out of Winslow II's embarrassing little meltdown -- I'm not here to treat you to that. As I have stated in recent game analysis articles, I'm not going to make sweeping statements about the program at this point. Number one, I'm saving that for later, and number two, I'm gradually learning not to assume anything on the results of just one game. I've done that in the past and gotten burned, like predicting a big Hokie win over WVU on the basis of what I'd seen from the Hokies to that point. Another recent example that one game says nothing about another is this year's WVU debacle, which was followed immediately by the big win over Miami.

So you won't get any big pronouncements about the Hokie program, the coaching staff, motivation, etc., as tempting as that is. I'll just stick to analyzing this individual game and will take a look to see what kept this one close and almost led to disaster.

But first, a little look back.

History Lesson

I wrote that paragraph in 1997, after the Hokies had survived a close game at Temple, 23-13. Amazing, isn't it? You can graft it directly onto this game, and it fits.

Virginia Tech has had some close wins over Temple over the years, and VT even did the unthinkable and lost to the Owls in a 1998 shocker, 28-24. While this win was uncomfortable and distasteful, it is not without precedent. The Owls have played the Hokies tough at times over the years.

Don't laugh, because relatively speaking, it's true. Not in the early days of the Big East, though. From 1993-1996, the Hokies beat the Owls by an average score of 43-9. Those scores, and Temple's ongoing ineptitude, have led Hokie fans to a sense of entitlement over the Owls, one that is perhaps undeserved.

Since 1997, it has been a different story between VT and Temple. If you take out the 62-7 laugher that Michael Vick and company laid on the Owls in 1999, the average score of VT-Temple, since 1997, has been just 27-16, Tech. And that includes a 35-0 whitewash in 2001.

In 1997, a couple of Temple fumbles deep in Tech territory in the fourth quarter (on the VT 22 and the VT 6) preserved a narrow 23-13 win, and as a matter of fact, that 1997 game was eerily like this one. The Hokies were flat, got outplayed, executed poorly on offense and defense, and won just because Temple couldn't stop themselves from losing.

In 1998, of course, there was the 28-24 shocker in Blacksburg. Then came the 1999 blowout in Philly, 62-7, but the next year in Blacksburg wasn't so pleasant. Michael Vick had a bad game, including tossing a 65-yard interception for a touchdown, and the Owls were down just 21-13 in the third quarter before succumbing 35-13 in VT's most lackluster offensive performance of the year.

2001 was an easy 35-0 win in Philadelphia, but last year (in a game that oddly, I don�t recall at all), the Hokies again squeaked to a win in Blacksburg, 20-10, as the Hokie offense turned the ball over four times.

Now this. A 24-23 overtime non-thriller that the Hokies won when Temple again showed its hapless side, missing an extra point at the end of the first overtime frame. God love the Owls -- if they knew how to win, they would have won in 1997 and in 2003, and would be 3-4 against VT in the last seven games.

I give this history lesson to point out that it's not unusual for Virginia Tech to show up against Temple, or rather, not show up, and lay an egg. It's not unusual for the Hokies to take the Owls for granted and play sloppy football, only to squeak out the win, or in the case of 1998, lose. Temple is historically a patchwork team of JUCO transfers and academic castoffs, so they have no consistency from year to year, but they've always got athletes, and if you let them up off the mat, they can tag you.

Some of the games mentioned above were out of character for VT and said nothing about the Tech team that was involved. The 1998 game was a fluke, as was the 2000 game. But some of the games mentioned above did indicate flaws in the Tech team involved. The 1997 VT team wasn't very good, and the close win over Temple in the third game of the season was an indicator of trouble ahead. (That VT team stumbled to a 7-5 season after starting out 4-0).

The 2002 game was also a sign that trouble was ahead. The 20-10 win pushed the Hokies to 8-0, and they fell apart immediately after that, losing to Pittsburgh the next week and dropping four of their last six to go 10-4 on the year.

So what is this game? A fluke, like 1998 and 2000, or a red flag, like 1997 and 2002? Only time will tell.

But the larger point remains, that it's not unusual for VT to stink it up against Temple. And I don�t say that just blow sunshine up your butt, either. It's just to point out that there's a historical precedent for what happened Saturday.

Looking at the drive chart, Virginia Tech's offense was MIA for two full quarters, arguably three.

On VT's first possession, the Hokies squandered the gift of a Kevin Jones 47-yard run on third and 1 that took it inside the Temple ten-yard line. Tech faced a third and 5 from the 7, ran the option out of the shotgun (Randall kept it), were stuffed for no gain, and had to kick the field goal.

On the next possession, the Hokies were again faced with a third down, this time third and 7, and again tried the option. Randall pitched to Jones, who had nowhere to go and lost four yards trying to cut back.

Marcus Vick came in for the third possession, and on the third play, threw a beautiful 63-yard touchdown pass to Ernest Wilford. The play was called back because of holding, and Vick shrugged it off and drove the Hokies down to the Temple 11. From there, he went for Jeff King in the end zone. King fell down, Vick was picked, and that was it.

On the next possession, Vick made by all accounts a horrible option pitch, losing 19 yards when he tried to toss a pitch while in the grasp of a defender. That play made it third and 29. (Lost in the post-game discussion: Vick then completed a 26-yard pass to Wilford, coming up three yards short of the first down.)

Vick then ended the half by fumbling a snap right before the clock ran out in the second quarter.

And that was it for the first half. Just five possessions.

In the third quarter, the Hokies brought Randall back in at QB, and he executed the offense well. The first drive was ten plays, 63 yards, and ended in a KJ 7-yard TD run.

After a three-and-out, the Hokies scored again on their third possession of the half, an 11-play, 85 yard drive in which Randall ate up the last 49 yards with two throws, a 21-yarder to Jeff King (on third and 21) and a 28-yard TD to Ernest Wilford.

After picking up nine first downs on the first three drives of the second half, the Hokie offense then went nighty-night for the rest of the game, picking up just two first downs in the next three Hokie possessions:

• First, the Hokies picked up a first down, then completed a four-yard pass on third down to force a punt.

• Second, the Hokies got a five-yard run on first down from KJ, then threw two straight incompletions to force a punt.

• Last, after picking up a first down, Randall threw an interception that nearly cost the Hokies the game. Jonathan McPhee picked the ball off at the Temple 38 and ran it to the Tech 33 with 8 seconds remaining.

Temple had an open receiver in the end zone on the next play, but Temple QB Walter Washington overthrew him, and then the Owls obligingly missed a 50-yard field goal that would have won the game.

VT killed their non-scoring drives by (all drives led by Bryan Randall unless otherwise noted):

• 1st qtr: Running the option for a loss on third and 7.
• 2nd qtr: Throwing an interception in the Temple end zone (Vick).
• 2nd qtr: Fumbling for a 19-yard loss on second down (Vick).
• 2nd qtr: Fumbling a snap right before half time (Vick).
• 3rd qtr: Throwing incomplete on third and 5 under heavy rush.
• 4th qtr: Throwing for just four yards on third and 7.
• 4th qtr: Throwing two straight incompletions after facing a 2nd and 5.
• 4th qtr: Throwing an interception.

Do you see what I see? Yep, lots of mistakes in the passing game. On a day where Kevin Jones, Bryan Randall, Cedric Humes, and Mike Imoh averaged 5.9 yards per carry, the Hokies sputtered offensively, primarily because they couldn't execute in the passing game.

You can question the wisdom of throwing the ball on third and 3 from the opponent's 11-yard line (the interception where King fell down). You can question the wisdom of calling two straight passes on second and 5, which happened. You can question why a 4-yard pass was thrown on third and 7. Etc., etc.

It's a no-win scenario for offensive coordinator Bryan Stinespring. If he hammers the ball into the line over and over, he's criticized for being boring and bullheaded. If he throws the ball a little and the team fails to execute against the worst defense in the Big East and one of the worst defenses in the country, he's criticized.

Is the Vick/Randall QB rotation hurting the team? That's hard to say. What would have happened if Randall or Vick had played the whole game? I don't know. I do know that Vick was the victim of a holding call that wiped out a TD and a tight end falling down. He also made a really, really bad decision on an option pitch.

Randall, meanwhile, threw a terrible interception that almost lost the game, and he threw at least one other pass that was almost intercepted. On one of his better plays, the 28-yard TD to Wilford, he threw it in a bad place, behind Wilford and on his hip, making an easy wide-open catch difficult.

Neither one of the QBs is playing well, and while I can't say whether the rotation is hurting the team, I know one thing: it's not helping.

On another topic, by Bill Roth's account of the game, Temple was firing into the backfield with their safeties and corners and linebackers, playing a gambling style of defense that carried high risk with it. A good offensive coordinator has a bag full of tricks for teams that are blitzing willy-nilly, and he burns them for it (a simple screen play with a guy like KJ would kill a team, but VT never runs the screen). Bryan Stinespring and his Hokie offense failed to make Temple pay for the style of defense they were playing.

Bottom line? The Hokies executed poorly in the passing game. If they had thrown the ball better at key times and avoided interceptions, particularly in the fourth quarter, they would have blown Temple off the field.

Meanwhile, at the same time the offense was struggling and tanking the fourth quarter, the Hokie defense collapsed in the final 15 minutes. They coughed up 213 yards and two long drives of 82 and 80 yards to Temple.

In Temple's first fourth-quarter drive, they didn't even sweat. They faced just one third-down situation, a third and 10, and picked up nine yards, then picked up the ensuing fourth and 1.

In their second fourth-quarter drive, again they weren't stressed. They faced only one third down, a third and 1, and converted it.

In their third fourth-quarter drive, a field goal drive that tied it up 17-17, they drove from their 29 to the Tech 20, converting a fourth and 9 along the way.

And then they scored easily in overtime.

There is no question that Tech's inability to stop other teams in the fourth quarter is getting old. Frank Beamer said his team looked "tired" in the fourth quarter, and you've got to wonder why. Going into the fourth, Temple had only run 42 plays on seven possessions, and they had held the ball just 18 minutes and 43 seconds. That shouldn't tire a defense out, particularly a defense that substitutes along the defensive line as much as Tech does.

"I don't think fatigue played a factor," DeAngelo Hall was quoted as saying in this week's hokiesports the newspaper. He continued, "We just didn't play Virginia Tech defense."

Bingo. Tech simply didn't come to play, period. They weren't aggressive, they tackled sloppily, missing 18 tackles, and they just flat -- pardon the pun -- weren't ready to play.

The also suffered a rash of injuries to their defensive line that required a lot of player shuffling, particularly along the DL, in the fourth quarter. Nathaniel Adibi dislocated his thumb, Vegas Robinson got a bruised wrist, Kevin Lewis sprained an MCL in his left knee, and Jonathan Lewis got a bruised shin at one point.

How do you explain a sudden string of injuries against Temple? Sure, injuries can be caused by a number of factors, but someone once told me that one factor is how hard you're playing. A team that is ready, aggressive, and hitting hard tends to suffer fewer injuries, because their technique is better, they're alert, and they're dishing out the punishment, not taking it. While I don't know the particulars of any of the injuries -- Jimmy Robertson wrote that K. Lewis' knee injury came from a cheap shot -- they are another possible sign that the Hokies weren't on their game.

At times, this Hokie defense is spectacular. At other times, as the eminently cute Reese Witherspoon, her nose wrinkled up, once said on the sitcom Friends, "� um, not so much." One thing is sure: like most defenses, this one needs to play fired up to play well. And in this game, they didn't play fired up. Again.

When you combine inconsistent quarterback play, key turnovers and penalties, and an offense that disappears down the stretch, with a defense that suddenly "gets tired" after a mere 42 plays, you're bound to wind up with what happened in this game.

Just like in 1997, when two fumbles prevented the Owls from beating Tech, Temple gift-wrapped this one for the Hokies. First, Walter Washington missed an open receiver with 8 seconds left to go, then Jared Davis missed a 50-yard field goal with 3 seconds left to go, and then Davis and his crew gagged on an extra point at the end of the first overtime.

"Thank God he missed it, because it didn't look like we were going to stop them, and I didn't know if we could keep matching them, to be real honest with you," Tech QB coach Kevin Rogers told The Roanoke Times after the game. Coach Rogers gets an "A" for both candidness and correctness.

If this Hokie team wants to be successful down the stretch, they need better quarterback play, more opportunistic offensive play-calling (and execution), fewer mistakes, and a defense that plays like its helmets are on fire. They got none of that in this game, and that's why it was a near-disaster.

I could hang around and say more -- for example, I could talk about how VT's last two opponents have a total of just two penalties for a total of just 15 yards, and how two key interference penalties, one defensive (Pitt) and one offensive (Temple) have gone uncalled -- but much like the Hokies, I just want to get the hell out of Philadelphia.

We'll return later this week with a Boston College preview, and yes, I'm going to pick the Hokies to win.

TechSideline Pass Home