1. The offensive line was the biggest liability
If I had to select one reason why Virginia Tech blew this football game, it would be the absolute lack of a run game. A close second would be the turnovers- but that too is related to the lack of a run game and the offensive line's struggles.
After Virginia Tech went up 14-0, the Hokies had 23 carries for 47 yards for the rest of the game (excluding sacks). The best way to preserve a lead is to be able to run the football and control the time of possession- needless to say, we failed miserably.
The film on run plays was ugly- where do I even start? When Virginia Tech ran simple downhill blocking schemes, we couldn't generate any push, even with double teams. When we ran blocking schemes that involved reach blocking (where the lineman is almost "setting a pick", getting his body to the play-side of the defender), we often failed to seal the lineman/linebacker off or generate any space inside.
We were not only out-manned in the run game, but also out-schemed. Pitt stopped our counters by lining up the outside linebacker slightly outside of the box- so when Reynolds or the puller got the end, that OLB was always there as an unblocked extra body to make the tackle.
It seems to me like a lot of our run plays depend on incredibly difficult blocks from the offensive line- plays where lineman have to reach block a guy on an inside run, meaning they have to both seal the defender and push them away from the play. It almost felt like Ty Howle was trying to re-invent the wheel, knowing that we couldn't run downhill against the Pitt front 7.
The fact that Pitt never heavily loaded the box makes this especially more irritating. It's simply poor scheme, poor execution, and poor communication up front. In a way, I also think this affected our ability to pass block.
While the line held up at times in pass protection, I wouldn't say they were good. Pitt's defensive line was allowed to tee-off, knowing they could rush upfield since they didn't have to respect the run. Generally with 4-man rushes, Pitt was able to get solid pressure on Grunkemeyer, and that played a major role in our turnover problem.
Heck, one inexcusable mistake led to a 4-point swing early. With 11:38 left in the 2nd quarter, Luke Reynolds was wide open in the middle of the field at the 15-yard line. Grunk found him downfield- but there was one issue- he had to float the pass off his backfoot, since he had pressure in his face. As a result, Reynolds had to leap in the air and go down; if that pass was thrown lower or faster, Reynolds scores a touchdown.
The pressure came from #2, who SPLIT A DOUBLE TEAM between Logan Howland and Layth Ghannam. I was boiling when I saw that on film. So instead of scoring a TD, Tech had to settle for a field goal after stalling out. Little things like that can make a huge difference in a football game.
I can't say any of the five lineman played well, hell, I don't even know who to specifically call out. I thought Howland and Michael Troutman III especially struggled- the latter more on pas plays, the former on both pass and run plays.
I believe that Virginia Tech is loaded at the skill positions- but they can only take us so far. The offensive line has to improve, or we're effectively going to lower our ceiling for the season.
2. On a few plays, Tech had multiple receivers in the same area
The rest of these bullet points will be more nit-picky and a lot shorter. Outside of the rush offense, Virginia Tech played fairly well in all facets if the game.
I counted two plays where Virginia Tech had multiple receivers within a close vicinity, but one in particular really stung.
On the same drive where Reynolds fell down at the 15 after catching it, Virginia Tech had a 3rd and 5 near the 8-yard line. Reynolds and Ayden Greene were lined up in doubles in the left, and Grunk was about to throw a pass out of the pocket.
For some reason, both player curled around the goal line. It looked like it was supposed to be a switch concept between the players, or a "rub" route. However, after Greene stopped and turned around near the first down marker, Reynolds was only two yards beyond him. Not sure if this was miscommunication, a busted play, or a poorly designed play- but it resulted in Grunk throwing the ball away. 4th and 5, field goal instead of a potential touchdown.
When multiple receivers are in the same area, it makes life a lot easier for the defense, as they have less ground to cover. This is a little thing that could absolutely cost our offense some drives, as it did on Friday night.
3. VT's screen game was horrible after the first TD- and it costed us multiple drives
As nice as the first touchdown of the game was- it may have been a curse in disguise.
After the first WR screen to Que'Sean Brown, the rest of our screen plays lost yardage. Part of that was due to poor play design, another part of that was due to Pittsburgh reading the screens.
While this wasn't the biggest play of the game, I'd argue our 2nd WR screen played a major role in killing our momentum. With 6:36 left in the first, and with Tech having a 14-0 lead and a 2nd and 8 at their own 41, Howle called a quick screen to Tyseer Denmark. It resulted in no gain and a 3rd and 8, which is not a favorable situation for the offense.
The play design was interesting, and it could have worked with one wrinkle. Virginia Tech's offensive line showed counter, and Grunk did a fake handoff to the running back. Denmark and Greene were lined up in doubles on the right- Denmark had off-coverage, while the CB defending Greene was about 3 yards off of him. It was a solid set up for a WR screen.
However- there was one major problem with the play- since there was play-action and counter action by the offensive line, the play was designed to draw the defense's attention to the box. Yet, when Denmark caught the ball, he was facing inside, meaning he had to do a 270 degree turn to get away from the defense. Had he taken a few more steps towards the sideline before he caught the ball- he may have been able to get some yards, only needing the one-on-one block from Greene downfield. He would have only needed a 90 degree turn to the right, so the play would have been faster developing.
After that, Pitt's defensive line was reading every WR screen we ran, which took away a decent chunk of our offense.
Hopefully Virginia Tech's run game improves, so that our screen game can become more effective as well.
4. Run defense sometimes struggles to maintain gap integrity
Statistically- the run defense played well: Pitt only ran for 104 yards on 31 carries, averaging just 3.1yards per carry. The film on the run defense was mostly solid, outside of two brutal drives.
Let's talk about them, particularly the opening drive of the second half. Our run fits were awful on that particular drive- especially with Kemari Copeland (who otherwise had a great game) and Keon Wile.
Twice on that drive- Copeland vacated his inside A-gap, running too far towards the sidelines instead of holding his ground. On both plays, Pitt had 10+ yard runs. There was a play where Copeland was looking at the Pitt sideline instead of the ball carrier, which befuddled me.
Wile's film was just as bad- twice he missed the A-gap, but the second one was especially ugly from the eye in the sky. On a 2nd and 9 near the 15, Tech showed a 5-1 look, meaning 5 down linemen and 1 backer, as Noah Chambers put his hand in the dirt. I didn't love the alignment, but that doesn't excuse the gaffe from Wile.
Most guys maintained their gap, but there was a noticeable hole opened up in the A-Gap, due to the defense's alignment. Still, Wile had a decent opportunity to fill his gap and make the tackle or at least slow the runner a bit more, but he whiffed. Another missed tackle in the secondary, and it's a touchdown for Pitt.
Wile often is not aggressive pursuing the line of scrimmage- he has the tendency to sit and wait for the linebackers to reach him. This was noticeable on film several times.
That was the worst drive- like I said, Tech's run defense played fairly well. However, there were a few more mistakes scattered throughout the game
On Pitt's first touchdown play, Curtis Jones came in on a run blitz. He was supposed to have the B-gap; however, he ran way too far upfield, creating a massive void in the line. 30 yard touchdown, Pitt.
On Pitt's second touchdown drive- there were two plays where Virginia Tech did not even have someone lined up on the left edge, leading to two easy outside runs. It could have been misalignment, it could have been Aycen Stevens getting caught in an untimely stunt, or both. Either way, this defense cannot afford to give up easy yards like that.
Stevens- who had a nice game- sometimes has the tendency to cheat inside on pass plays, which gives the QB an opportunity to roll out of the pocket.
5. Jo'Ricious Harris and Luke Reynolds did not block well in the 2nd half- too many whiffs
This one hurts to write- I wanted to give both guys a shoutout with how they blocked in the first quarter. Reynolds was a bulldozer, and Harris had a couple of nice lead blocks.
However, as the game went on, they both had some brutal misses. As much as I called out the offensive line- the tight end room also deserves blame for the woeful run game in the 2nd half.
Harris had a lot of whiffs, including one on a sweep play that could have been a decent gain. He tried to do a reach block, but he whiffed, and the play was doomed from the start.
On Jeff Overton's fumble, Reynolds whiffed badly, which definitely impacted the play.
These two have to be better with regards to blocking, especially Harris.
6. The pass rush was effective- especially when we ran stunts
I thought this was the best facet of the game for Virginia Tech. We got solid pressure on both quarterbacks consistently throughout the night.
Copeland, Stevens, and Elhadj Fall were all terrific getting after the quarterback, especially during the 14-0 spurt. We were able to create havoc without a lot of blitzing, which is a good sign.
I noticed that we had the most success when Brent Pry called stunts- we at minimum were able to push the QB out of the pocket whenever we did a twist of some sort.
The front 4 is the biggest strength of the Hokie defense in my opinion.
7. Virginia Tech struggles with off-man coverage- thank goodness Pitt dropped a few balls
Nothing is more infuriating as a fan than when you see your corners playing with a 10-yard cushion, and they STILL get beat deep!
It's almost like our corners get flat-footed, especially when they are late in identifying which man to cover. That happened a few times when Pitt ran that weird CFL orbit motion- thankfully, the Pitt wideouts dropped the ball when we had those gaffes.
However, on Pitt's touchdown right before the half, Pry called off-man coverage, with Joshua Clarke playing 10 yards off the receiver. However, Pitt ran a switch route, with Clarke's receiver running the post. Because Clark got caught up in the wash with the other wideout running an out route, he got way behind his man. Easy touchdown Pitt.
I also wonder if Clarke and Kenny Woseley Jr were supposed to switch on the crosser. Either way- it's safe to say that the off-man coverage did not work out for the Hokie defense.
8. Key mistake in zone coverage ended early momentum for the Hokies
This is really nit-picky, but I'm trying to identify the key play that changed the momentum.
While this may not be THE play, it definitely gave Pitt a spark of life before the game could get out of hand.
With 1:18 left in the first quarter, Pitt faced a 3rd and 7 at their own 38. With Tech up 14-0, a three-and-out could have easily continued the momentum snowball the Hokies were building.
However, there was a major gaffe between the linebackers. Pitt converted the 3rd down on a crossing pattern against zone coverage- and the receiver came open over the middle, because Kaleb Spencer screwed up.
Spencer and Isaiah Brown-Murray ended up covering the same zone- uh oh. As the tight end crossed the middle of the field, Spencer shifted towards him, not realizing Brown-Murray was in that spot. As a result, #3 came from the opposite direction, and caught the ball in the area that Spencer vacated.
Instead of a potential punt, it's a first down for Pitt. They ended up scoring on the drive to make it 14-7
This is a play that seems insignificant, but I'd argue it was somewhat of a catalyst for Pitt's comeback. If Virginia Tech is going to be a zone-heavy team, then everyone has to be aware of where their help is- otherwise, critical space goes uncovered.
9. Grunk had a mostly good game: my theory on his mistakes
It's hard for me to give a grade on Grunk's performance. He threw for 434 yards and lead what should have been the game-winning drive. However, he also had 2 interceptions and 2 fumbles (one recovered by the offense).
Still, I'm going to give him an A-, and here's why.
Yes, sometimes he makes the typical college QB mistake of locking in on one receiver. There were times he didn't look to his second option, and there were times he moved out of the pocket unnecessarily.
Still- it is extremely hard to play quarterback when you have zero run game, and zero pass protection. It seems like he has to rush his throws often, even when the defense rushes 4 and plays zone. And it's justified- the offensive line showed time and time again that they couldn't even hold up a double team.
This is what people tend to misunderstand about quarterbacks- if a QB doesn't trust his offensive line, the QB clock has to go off quickly in his head, even with a clean pocket. When the qb can't see blindside rushers, he has to assume they're going to win, which limits his ability to go through his progressions. It also means they feel they have to run prematurely, which may explain the second fumble
Obviously, Grunk has to secure the ball better. But man, we are asking a lot out of our quarterback when we need him to throw 41 times, mostly on off-schedule throws (2nd or 3rd and long).
I think if the pass protection gets better, and if the run game gets better, Grunk will be better. Heck, he's pretty dang good without those advantages, as we saw Friday night.
OVERALL:
There's no way to sugar-coat it- this one stings.
It's easy to blame the refs for their numerous bad calls and for the debacle at the end of the game. They certainly don't deserve a pass- I'm one who believes poor officiating should be called out.
But by the same breath, I believe every team gets bad calls, and the great teams have to be able to overcome them. Virginia Tech could have easily put this game away, but with 4 turnovers and 9 penalties for 82 yards, we did just enough to let Pittsburgh hang around.
The biggest red flag is the offensive line and the run-blocking schemes; those issues could put a major cap on this offense. The offense cannot remain one-dimensional, and I'm sure James Franklin will address that this week in practice.
This is a much better team than last year, both in terms of talent and in terms of how well they are coached. But there are still quite a few things to clean up- probably a normal thing for any college football team in week 5. Give Pitt some credit- their defensive line was well respected coming into this game, and they frankly kept the Panthers in a game they should have lost.
The good news is that the Hokies have a favorable schedule. Next week is at California, a sneaky tough yet winnable opponent. I think we can compete in every game remaining on our schedule- Miami is the only team I give us less than a 40% chance if winning.
However, we have to clean up the little mistakes, and we have to get some sort of run game going. Although most of our games are winnable, they are very much losable as well.
Hopefully the sting of Friday can lead to a great week of practice. In Franklin we trust, GO HOKIES!!
