Going into 2005, the Virginia Tech Hokies appear loaded in the offensive skill positions, and the defense seems rock solid on the line and linebacking corps. But the D still has a large question mark in the secondary, where only one of the four D-backs is a returning starter. It helps when that “only one” is all-American Jimmy Williams, but still, the lack of experience in the defensive backfield is a major cause for concern heading into this season.

The fourth starter in the secondary is new to his position. Aaron Rouse moved from linebacker to rover to help out the team. Rouse is a hard hitter who plays strong against the run, tallying 83 tackles in two years. He got plenty of work at rover during spring training and got the majority of the snaps in preseason practice. The coaches said he had an “excellent preseason camp and has quickly adapted to his new position.” His coverage skills are untested in “live play” though.

All in all, the starting lineup for the secondary looks pretty solid. Problems don’t become apparent until you start to look at the two-deep roster.

The most experienced backup is junior Cary Wade, who backs up Rouse at rover. Wade has played in 26 games and registered 17 tackles, but most of those were on special teams. Wade is a good pass defender and an even better run stopper, but he needs more playing time under his belt for his position. He’s coming off a good spring practice that saw him named the defense’s most improved player. He also had a strong preseason camp but injured his ankle.

At free safety, the backup is Justin Hamilton, a player who is not only new to the position, he is also new to the defensive side of the ball. Hamilton is a true team player in the Nick Sorensen mold. For Hamilton, this is his third position move since coming to Tech. He started out a running back but quickly moved to flanker when the receiving corps needed able bodies. He moved back to running back when the team lacked depth in the offensive backfield. And now, in his senior season, he’s moving again due to a lack of depth, this time in the defensive backfield. His preparation during the offseason has impressed the coaches and he seems to be transitioning well.

Rounding out the secondary two-deep roster are two freshmen, Victor “Macho” Harris and Brandon Flowers. Flowers was named the Hokies’ top newcomer during spring practice. He has 4.49 speed and the coaches describe him as a “hard worker with great technique.” (An interesting side-note about Flowers: though he enters 2005 as a redshirt freshman, he already has a college touchdown to his credit. He returned an interception for a score against Western Michigan, but broke his leg later that game. He sat out the rest of the season and was granted a medical redshirt.)

Harris is a true freshman, but he made it into the two-deep once the coaches saw his playmaking skills. He appears to be a DeAngelo Hall type player (minus the mouth), and the coaches expect to play him on offense as a wideout after he becomes comfortable with D. Considering the depth of talent the Hokies have at receiver, those expectations say a lot about his skill. Others agree. Macho was a Parade All-American in high school and was rated the #3 “athlete” in the nation by Rivals.com.

So what is the difference, if the majority of the secondary lacks playing experience? They’ve got the talent and the speed; shouldn’t that be enough? It’s true that a player sometimes comes in from high school and makes an immediate positive impact. Michael Vick and DeAngelo Hall both had extraordinary years as freshmen and were recognized on a national level. But they are the anomalies. Most players – even the truly exceptional ones – need time to develop. John Engelberger, Ben Taylor, Lee Suggs, Ernest Wilford, all these players had stellar careers at Tech and went on to the NFL, but it took time to develop their talent. They showed promise as freshmen and sophomores, but didn’t have breakout seasons until they had a couple of years experience under their belts. Corey Moore won the Lombardi Award, the Bronko Nagurski Award, and was named the Football News Defensive Player of the Year in 1999, but even Moore took time to develop into the elite college athlete he became in his final year. He redshirted his first year at Tech and then spent his first year on the field as a backup.

So how can the average fan get an idea about which players are poised for breakout seasons and which ones are still developing? To get a good feel for how a certain player is progressing, one needs to go no further than the media guide and deconstruct the coachspeak.

Frank Beamer is renowned for the way he praises other teams and their players. Instead of berating an opponent, he mentions how difficult it will be for the Hokies to play them, whether the opponent is JMU or FSU. The fervor with which he heaps accolades upon opponents is similar to a boasting father bragging about his son’s exploits. But the flattery ends with the other team. Beamer seldom talks up his own players. Certainly, he acknowledges their skills and abilities, but he tends to keep his opinion reserved until the season is over. Afterwards, he might admit how excited he and the other coaches were heading into the season, but never before.

The same downplaying attitude is present in the Virginia Tech Football Media Guide. Each player’s accomplishments are listed, but when his ability is mentioned the descriptions are chosen with care. A player’s bio might give the following descriptions: a strong desire to win, unselfish, talented athlete, expected to be a big contributor, a consistent performer, tremendous ability. But along with those accolades one can usually find veiled criticism that indicates the player is still developing.

To find evidence, examine the preseason bios for the most successful Hokie team of the modern era, the 1999 Hokies. That team had an undefeated regular season, played for the national championship, and landed many of its players in the NFL. However, you wouldn’t have expected those results before the season if you happened to read the media guide. Here are a few of the comments about the players who would become playmakers that season:

• Ike Charlton: “Could develop into an all-star cornerback this season if he stays focused.”
• Andre Davis: “Still needs to get stronger, but is ready to challenge for a starting job.”
• Emmett Johnson: “Is gaining maturity and focus…Still has a lot of work to do, but has a bright future.”
• Anthony Midget: “A smart, experienced player…must continue to be more physical.”

There were other players with similar “needs to develop” comments who didn’t become stars, and there were other players on that team who had already reached star status. These entries were also from the 1999 Media Guide:

• Corey Moore: “His combination of explosive speed and outstanding strength make him one of the most exciting defensive players in the Division I ranks.”
• John Engelberger: “A play-maker who…has made himself a complete player through hard work.”
• Jamel Smith: “Ranks among the top linebackers in the Big East…was one of the driving forces behind Tech’s nationally-ranked defense last season.”
• Jarrett Ferguson: “Has become a complete player.”

Each player listed above had proved himself on the field before the coaches gave him unqualified praise. But sometimes the coaches will gush over a player who lacks playing experience. His bio will not contain any of those “qualifiers” that let the reader know a player is still developing. It might be because the player is ultra-talented (Michael Vick, 1999 bio: “Possesses outstanding talent and a great arm…may be the best all-around athlete the Hokies have had at QB.”) or because the player has proved himself in practice (Shyrone Stith, 1999 bio: “An extremely gifted player who Tech running backs coach Billy Hite calls the most unselfish player he has ever coached…Has worked extremely hard to make himself a complete football player…Has a chance to become one of Tech’s all-time best.”)

The difference between the coaches knowing a player will have a great season and hoping he might is evident in the qualifying statements. There is a difference between a player who “will be counted on” and one who “is ready.” There is a difference between a player who “has the potential to be a key contributor” (Brandon Flowers 2005 bio) and one who “has made himself an outstanding player” (Darryl Tapp 2005 bio).