Click here for TSL's Game Recap

While all the talk about the Virginia Cavaliers the last few years has been that they have been recruiting well, accumulating talent, etc., etc., the undeniable truth is that Saturday, Al Groh and company ventured into new territory, not only outplaying Virginia Tech, but outcoaching them.

This isn't a hard game to analyze. The major themes that jump out at you are:

1.) Heath Miller catching 13 passes for 145 yards.
2.) The Cavaliers picking up third-down and fourth-down conversions.
3.) The Hokies shooting themselves in the foot with penalties and lack of concentration.
4.) VT's defense getting torched.
5.) VT getting outcoached.

At this point of the season, and in the midst of this swoon, my appetite for breaking film down in detail has started to leave me, so most of this discussion will be stats-based, as opposed to breaking down plays. I did watch the film for some trends, but you'll find very few breakdowns of plays here.

On September 1st, 1990, I sat in a hotel room in Myrtle Beach with two college buddies and watched Maryland's Frank Wycheck shred the Hokie defense for 14 catches for 106 yards in a 20-13 Maryland win. The 14 catches were a record for a Tech opponent, and the record still stands.

Last Saturday, had UVa's Heath Miller not dropped one first-quarter pass that hit him in the hands, he would have tied Wycheck's record. As it was, Miller caught a mere 13 passes for 145 yards, tying Ron Sellers of FSU (1966) and Antonio Bryant of Pittsburgh (1999) for second on the list of single-game reception performances against Tech.

(Side note: Looking in the VT media guide for that record, I see that Pitt's Latef Grim caught 12 passes in the same game that Bryant caught 13. Holy smokes, was that a gut-wrenching game �)

How did Miller whip the Hokies? Let me count the ways:

1.) By parking in open spots in the zone. In one first-half play, Miller went downfield about five yards, stopped, turned around, and waited for Matt Schaub to throw him the ball (Schaub obliged). Three yards away, Mikal Baaqee also waited for Schaub to throw the ball, and after he did, then came over and made the tackle.

2.) By making great catches on great throws. On another first-half play, Miller ran an out pattern and sat and waited for Schaub to throw him the ball. Tech rover Michael Crawford was all over Miller, gloving him up and using the sideline as an extra defender. Textbook defense. The only problem was, Schaub threw the ball low and at least two yards out of bounds. Miller just toed the sideline, leaned over, and snared the pass. Crawford, despite doing everything right, didn't have a chance to make the play.

3.) By running precise routes against Tech DB's. As they did in the Miami game with Kellen Winslow, the Hokies put a cornerback on Miller. In the Miami game, it was Vince Fuller on Winslow, and in this game, for the first half anyway, it was DeAngelo Hall against Miller. Miller burned Hall for one 19-yard reception to the Virginia Tech one-yard line, a play on which Miller ran his route, got inside position on Hall, and shielded him from -- once again -- a perfect throw from Schaub.

4.) By taking advantage of UVa's multi-faceted offense. On third and 4 from the Hokie 11 late in the third quarter (1:54 to go), UVa dropped back to pass and sent both backs out into the flat, one to the left and one to the right. Schaub pump-faked to one of them, freezing the linebackers and drawing their attention to the RB's. Miller, who had been blocking along the OL to that point, broke off the line and ran a short pattern into the middle of the Hokie defense. Schaub hit him for a 8-yard gain and the first down. Go back and watch the play -- Virginia was just toying with Tech's defense at that point.

The Hokie defense never did seem to get a clue that #89 was going to get the ball, a LOT. In the first half, the Hokies had some good coverages on Miller (and some bad), but in the second half, Miller was wide, wide open on most receptions. He worked for it in the first half and didn't work for it in the second half.

It used to be that anything longer than third and 4 was death against the Hokie defense. These days? � eh.

Virginia Tech has allowed opponents to convert 69 of 186 third-down tries this season, for a 37% conversion rate. Later on, in my "State of the Program" series, we'll put that number into historical context, and it will make your hair stand on end. Let's just say for now that it's high. If you're like me, you "feel" that the Hokies aren't doing well defensively on third downs, and the statistics support it.

Fourth down conversions? Opponents are 14 of 21, or 67%.

In this contest, Virginia was 9 of 18 on third downs, and a perfect 3 of 3 on fourth downs, two of which went for touchdowns. UVa was simply clutch, and the VT defense couldn't get off the field. Heath Miller converted 4 of those 9 third downs, and one of the fourth downs.

And of Virginia's 9 third-down conversions, 7 of them were third and 6 or longer! The Cavaliers converted two third and 6s (one on a VT penalty), one third and 7, one third and 10, two third and 11s, and third and 15 (for a 49-yard touchdown).

The fourth down conversions were killers. As noted, two of them led to Virginia touchdowns, and the third one was the infamous fake field goal.

I can't add a whole lot to the statistics given here. VT simply got slaughtered by Virginia on third-down and fourth-down conversions. That's part of what led to all of the long drives Virginia had:

• 11 plays, 47 yards
• 9 plays 79 yards
• 7 plays, 41 yards
• 7 plays, 74 yards
• 10 plays, 80 yards
• 10 plays, 48 yards
• 10 plays, 69 yards

Virginia had one possession that was ended by an interception on the first play. Except for the interception and two possessions that were ended by the half expiring, UVa had just two three-and-outs, and every other possession was 7 plays or more.

VT had just three drives of 7 plays or more, versus 7 such drives by UVa.

Frank Beamer has a thing he says about close losses: "You can what-if yourself to death."

You can argue that this wasn't a close loss, and it certainly wasn't of the character of the BC game or the Pittsburgh game. I've gotten into playing the what-if game, because I think it tells you things about your team.

Here are the plays in which VT shot themselves in the foot, meaning that they took a prosperous situation -- or potentially prosperous situation -- and wiped it out. And I'm not even including good plays by VT's offense that were called back because of holding penalties:

• 2nd qtr: DeAngelo Hall returns a punt 54 yards inside UVa's 15; VT gets a penalty that forces UVa to punt over. The Hokies get the ball on the VT 41 after the second punt, and the Hokies go three-and-out from there.

• 3rd qtr, 10:41 to go, UVa facing 3rd and 6 from the VT 21: The Hokies commit pass interference, giving UVa first down. The Cavaliers go on to score a touchdown.

• 3rd qtr. 7:35 to go, UVa facing 3rd and 3 from their 26: Darryl Tapp pressures Schaub, who hits Vegas Robinson in the chest with his pass. Vegas drops it.

• 3rd qtr, 7:29 to go, 4th and 3 (the next play): Eric Green blocks Tom Hagan's punt and returns it for a TD. Hokies Vince Fuller is whistled for offsides, first down UVa. The Cavaliers go on to score a touchdown.

• 4th qtr, 3:07 to go, 3rd and 7: Vince Fuller gets hit in the hands with an overthrown pass by Schaub and doesn't pick it off. On the next play, UVa fakes the field goal for a first down, and on the play after that, they score a touchdown.

Want to play "what-if"? I see one VT touchdown wiped out, and three UVa drives extended, drives that later on went for UVa touchdowns. That's at least a twenty-five point swing (assuming UVa kicks a field goal on the drive that was extended by interference), maybe as much as twenty-eight points.

Every game comes down to just a few plays, and this game came down to those five plays. Sure, there were others, but if those five plays go VT's way, we're talking about a Tech win.

On BeamerBall.com, they list ten objectives for the Hokie defense for each game -- objectives related to turnovers, third-down conversions, etc.

Reviewing the defensive objectives from past games reveals that they directly track the defense's subjective performance for each game. The D's best games were Syracuse, JMU, and Miami, and looking at the objectives verifies that. The Hokies met 9 of 10 objectives against JMU and Miami, and 8 of 10 against Syracuse.

As the performance of the D gets shaky, the number of objectives met starts to fall. The Hokies were at 50% or less, for example, against Pittsburgh (2 of 10), Temple (4 of 10), and Boston College (3 of 10). Against WVU? 0 of 10 objectives met.

Against Virginia? Again, 0 of 10 defensive goals met.

The Hoo offense beat the Tech defense like a drum. The Hokies had a good stretch in the second half in which they forced UVa to two straight three-and-outs, but other than that, Virginia did what they wanted, when they wanted to. They started off with drives of 9 plays and 11 plays, and they finished up with drives of 10, 10, and 10 plays. Tough to watch, for Hokie fans.

I could continue to throw a bunch of stats at you, but I've already discussed the key ones: the receptions by Miller and the third-down and fourth-down conversion rates. Exacerbating a bad situation were the big plays turned in by Virginia. BeamerBall.com defines a big play as 25 yards or more, but I define it as 15 yards or more, and as noted in the game recap, VT gave up 9 plays of 15 yards or more. That included runs of 17 and 19 yards and two passes of 49 yards.

And so on, and so on. Probably what is most disappointing are the plays given up when the Hokies knew what was coming. The biggest example of that is Eric Green giving up the 49-yard TD pass to Alvin Pearman on the wheel route that made it 21-14, UVa. It was third and 15, the Hokies are coached not to give up the big play, and Green was out there with Pearman, one-on-one � and just blew the coverage. Nice pass by Matt Schaub, though, and Green's coverage would have had to have been perfect to prevent the play. But at the very least, it would have been good for him to stay close enough to Pearman to make the tackle.

I'm really at a loss as to what to say that sheds any light on what you saw. We all know the stats, and we all saw the weak pass rush, poor coverages, and lack of physical linebacker play (Virginia really manhandled VT on a few plays, most notably Wali Lundy's first-quarter touchdown on a fourth-down play).

There were three areas in which I felt the Hokie coaches got whipped by their counterparts on the UVa sideline (and there may even be more):

Adjustments: VT didn't make them, either offensively or defensively. Miller caught as many passes in the second half as he did in the first half, and as noted above, it actually got easier for Miller to get open as the game went on. Offensively, the Hokies didn't find anything that worked until Randall dumped the ball off to Jones three times for 41 yards in Tech's final, 18-play touchdown drive.

UVa's defense sold out on stopping the run. There was one third-down play (a third and 2, I believe) where VT handed off to Kevin Jones, and UVa safety Jamaine Winborne blitzed down the line and tackled KJ for a loss, ending the drive. Winborne and his teammates crowded the line all day long, and VT failed to make them pay for it.

When Bryan Stinespring did make a clever play call, it didn't work. I thought one good play call was a bootleg that he called on second and goal from the UVa three-yard line, on VT's last touchdown drive. VT had been selling run all day long, and on this play, Randall faked the handoff to Jones and sprinted around the right end on a naked bootleg. He should have been out there all by himself as 11 tacklers went after Jones, but instead, Randall was greeted by three defenders, and only through force of will was he able to gain a yard down to the two-yard line.

Television never did show a decent replay, but if you had told me what was coming before the ball was snapped, I would have bet that it would have fooled Virginia completely. But it didn't. One reason may have been that Randall didn�t really sell the play fake, extending his empty hand into Jones' belly, instead of the hand with the ball.

I thought one thing VT did that was clever was the use of Marcus Vick. They used him at wide receiver, they handed it to him on the end-around, and they subbed him at QB and had him run a couple of draws.

I counted five plays where Marcus Vick was on the field with Bryan Randall, and something good happened on four of them. Vick ran an end-around and a QB keeper for first downs, and he also picked up six yards on another QB keeper. There was a fourth play where he ran a pattern at receiver and was wide open, but Randall got flushed, failed to see him, and ran for positive yardage.

Once, the experiment didn't go well. Vick was used as a decoy on an end-around, and after the play, he ran off to the sideline after VT broke the huddle. Tweet! Flag, illegal substitution (the Hokies picked up the first down later, anyway).

Overall, though, the Vick plays were positive.

Going for it on fourth down: On the last possession of the first half, the Hokies drove from their 6-yard line to the Virginia 37-yard line, where they faced fourth and 4 with 38 seconds in the half.

(Side note: On the previous play, third and 4, the Hokies called a sideline pattern. Randall took a three-step drop, and Mike Imoh ran the pattern and was wide open just beyond the first down marker. Randall threw it low and outside, pulling Imoh back inside the marker � and Imoh dropped it. Fine play call by Stinespring, poor execution.)

It would have been a somewhat risky call for VT to go for it on fourth and 4. Virginia had all three timeouts left and probably would have gotten the ball back on about their 35 yard line with about 32-33 seconds left, depending upon the fourth-down play.

So Frank Beamer did the safe thing and punted it, instead of going for it in the hopes of extending a 14-7 lead.

Fast forward to UVa's last scoring drive. Up 28-21 with about three minutes to go, facing a fourth and 7 from the Tech 29-yard line, the Hoos lined up in a field goal formation. They faked the field goal, with Matt Schaub picking up the snap, rolling right, and hitting a wide-open Heath Miller for ten yards and the first down.

First, the details of the play: After the ball was snapped, Miller dragged along behind the line of scrimmage from the left side all the way to the right side. Tech's Jimmy Williams and Vegas Robinson were in position to make the play on Miller and were not going for the kick block, but by the time they realized Schaub was rolling out, and by the time Miller appeared in space in front of them, they reacted too late. Miller caught the ball 7 yards from the first down marker and motored 10 yards to pick up the first down. He spent a long time running in an area where he would have failed to get the first down, had he been tackled. My point? VT had plenty of opportunity to make this play, and they didn't.

Al Groh's decision to go for it on fourth and 7 was a little crazy. The field goal would have been 46 yards, but the wind wasn't very strong, and though Connor Hughes is a great kicker, Groh had made his mind up to go for it. Had VT read the play, they would have been all over it, and had Schaub done something stupid (unlikely), VT might have even picked it off and gone all the way to the house. UVa risked it and got a great reward.

The two situations were almost identical. It was the end of the half, each coach was protecting a lead, and each team faced fourth and long just out of field goal range. Frank Beamer punted, and Al Groh went for the throat. Groh was quoted repeatedly in the press this week as saying things like, "I wanted to show confidence in my team," and "I wanted to play aggressive," etc. When faced with a chance to give his team an edge, Groh went for it, and Beamer played it safe, and look what happened. UVa got a play that inspired their team not just for the touchdown that followed, but for the future. Virginia Tech got a punt.

In general, UVa was aggressive and wanted the win more than VT did, and they coached like it, taking risks and going for the throat.

Goal line coaching: On Virginia's touchdown that tied it at 14, the Cavaliers lined up, and then three of their players split out wide left, in a stacked formation. Virginia Tech's response was to send two players out, one of which (Brandon Manning) stood one yard deep in the end zone, and the other of which (DeAngelo Hall) backed up five yards deep into the end zone.

Schaub must have thought it was Christmas. He raised up and fired the ball to Wali Lundy, who scored pretty easily. Hall almost made a great play, sneaking around the blocker to tackle Lundy, but Hall wasn't physical enough to keep Lundy out of the end zone (in case you haven't noticed, there are no tacklers in the VT secondary on par with great tacklers of the past like Antonio Banks, Torrian Gray, and William Yarborough).

Trying to cover three guys with two, one of whom is standing six yards away in the end zone, baffles me. Either the formation was a new one -- in which case the VT players should have immediately called a timeout -- or the VT coaches had seen in on film and did a terrible job prepping the team to stop it.

Despite UVa's offensive proficiency, this game was just a few plays away from being a Hokie win. Matt Schaub played well, but he threw one interception and gave VT a chance to make two others (as detailed above) that the Hokies didn't take advantage of.

And had Tech made the play on the fake field goal, the outcome might have been different.

Still, as I noted in our preview when I picked UVa to win, you can't go on beating the same team over and over. Eventually, the breaks go their way, and it generally happens when they enter the game with a positive momentum tick, and you come in with a team that is a little lost and suffering from problems with coaching, confidence, and execution.

This game closes out the last half of the season at 2-4, with a great win over Miami and a narrow escape at Temple lost amongst four losses, one that was ugly (WVU), and three others that were winnable (Pitt, BC, and UVa).

Sentiment around the program and among the fans is that this loss will be a catalyst for change. Bud Foster seems really mad about something, Frank Beamer is pledging to go to the film and evaluate things, and whispers in the wind say that one or more coaching changes may be made, and a malcontent player or two might not be around next year, or even next spring.

If change is coming, how extensive will it be? Will it occur amongst the position coaches, or will it extend all the way up to the coordinator level? What player personnel changes will be made? Will VT's offensive and defensive schemes change? The coming weeks and months will tell.

Beginning Thursday, TSL will run a comprehensive series of articles called "The State of the Program." We'll cover this season, the offense, the defense, special teams, coaching, recruiting, scheduling, and heart/attitude. While I don�t pretend to be a brilliant coaching tactician, a good evaluator of talent, or an insider to the program, I have been watching VT football closely for years now, and I've got some thoughts on what I think is right and wrong with the program.

Frank Beamer has been able to build the Virginia Tech program up from nothing to a point where it is the envy of many, but he himself has often been quoted as saying that it's harder to stay on top of the mountain than it is to climb it. Virginia Tech reached the mountaintop at the end of the 1999 season and stayed there through the 2000 season, but they have become shaky on their perch as of late.

Has Beamer got it in him to change, adapt, and keep fighting off the competition? As I said above, time will tell. We'll start taking a look in just a couple of days.

TechSideline Pass Home