Well, that didn’t go as hoped. The Bronco Mendenhall era for Virginia football kicked off with a 37-20 loss to Richmond, leaving some Sabre and UVA fans in a mild state of shock. With two road games up next, the Hoos will try to regroup on the fly.
With that in mind, it’s time to dive into TheSabre.com’s weekly football feature called “Ask The Sabre” where our staff responds to fan questions. This feature is brought to you by our newest sponsor Bundoran Farm, where you can Create Your Virginia Legacy.
This installment tries to sort out the slow start, the defense’s issues, and more. To see the “Ask The Sabre” articles in the archives, just click here.
What scheme alterations can be adopted to improve the ground game? ~ Chuck Taylor
What adjustments, if any, can be made with the OL scheme to provide better opportunities for UVA’s running backs? ~ hawkb
Why using a small back in short yardage downs? ~ UVAECON
Sabre Editor Kris Wright: Make no mistake, a lot of questions popped up after Virginia’s output in the run game Saturday. Statistically, it looked like this: 21 carries for 38 yards, a whopping 1.8 yards per carry. Even taking out 3 sacks and 25 lost yards, it looked like this: 18 carries for 63 yards, a better 3.5 yards per carry but nothing to write home about. Plus, it cuts the other way too. If you take out the last drive where most of the production occurred against a defense dropping eight deep into coverage and conceding run yards (5 carries for 35 yards), UVA had 16 carries for 3 yards. Yikes: .18 yards per carry!
Enough reliving the issue, though. What can Virginia do to fix it? I think there are a handful of options to look at within the scheme. First, I’d swap a B Back for a tight end/H-Back a little more often – I haven’t seen a good lead block from a fullback role on a consistent basis, but I do think Evan Butts seals his blocks more often than not. Granted, I’m not breaking down every rep or every practice rep, but I think Butts offers a lot to the equation potentially. Second, I’d consider four wide receivers to spread the defense out horizontally and then run read option for a few snaps with Kurt Benkert. The spacing with the spread and the defensive hesitation with the read option might be enough to squeeze out some yards. I know there’s some hesitancy to risk Benkert in the running game, but with experienced backups at quarterback, it might be worth the risk … though the coaches may want to ACC play before they’re willing to take it. Lastly, I’d use Albert Reid or Daniel Hamm (maybe Jordan Ellis if he’s healthy) as the exclusive third down/short yardage back. Taquan Mizzell is a great asset to the offense, but trusting his vision in the tight quarters of inside runs on short yardage is not something I would do. Keep him in the game, motion him out to receiver to get a read on the defense, and go from there with another back left in the backfield.
What’s the key to getting the defensive ends to set the edge? Is it personnel or the guys being in the right position? ~ Cavman13
Sabre Editor Kris Wright: First, it’s important to note that it isn’t always the defensive ends’ job to set the edge. That depends on the defensive call. With that said, I think it is guys being in the right position. The outside linebackers, in particular, got turned inside way too easily last week and a lot of it had to do with technique breakdowns (footwork and hand placement/fighting). On a positive note, I thought corner Tim Harris had perhaps the best game of his career with setting the outside edge against Richmond when the play called for it.
What kind of steps can/will be taken in order to simplify the defensive side of the ball in order to help tighten things up while playing an offense with such known complexities like the one at Oregon? ~ jpage520
Sabre analyst Ahmad Hawkins (check out The Ball Hawk Show podcast!): The one thing that has to be fixed is the ability to play assignment football. It is very important to know your reads and assignments vs. the type of offense Oregon uses. I anticipate that the Hoos will play more base defense and not leave the defensive backs on an island. More zone defenses will be utilized to help the outside linebackers and safeties be able to react faster once they have their reads.
Do we really think Bronco gave the guys too much new stuff to execute, or is the athletic talent just not where it needs to be to run his stuff? I ask mainly about the D, because I didn’t see anything that was all that exotic from UR’s offense or from our defense – certainly nothing that stood out. That said, I have only a superficial understanding of the new schemes and how they differ from what the returners played in last year. ~ Sabre Rattler
Associate Editor Chris Horne: Virginia was a step slow and hesitant all day against Richmond. If a simpler game plan allows the players – particularly those inexperienced players UVA is counting on to fill roles – to be able to play faster and with more physicality, I think that’s what Mendenhall wants. There isn’t a lot of playing experience outside of Donte Wilkins, Micah Kiser, Zach Bradshaw, Quin Blanding, Kelvin Rainey, and Tim Harris.
Sabre analyst Ahmad Hawkins: Richmond did a very good job of using pre-snap motions vs. the defense last game. The motion can cause linebackers to make checks, thus allowing Richmond to understand what the D was trying to do schematically before the ball was snapped. The fact that this was the first live action in the new 3-4 defense, you saw a lot of blown assignments when Richmond used misdirection and screen plays. Defenders were caught with their eyes in the backfield a lot due to the misdirection and deception by Richmond. Oregon will use similar deception concepts on Saturday night and it is very important that the linebackers and secondary players read their keys and trust the scheme of the defense. This 3-4 defense calls for the linebackers to play in space more and there is also one less defensive linemen to help with gap integrity. Players have to trust the system or the defense will allow big plays vs. this fast-paced Oregon defense.
Coach Mendenhall said that he saw some good things from Andrew Brown once he settled into the flow of the game. I was puzzled when he said this, but these things might be hard for a layman observer of defensive line play to see. Can you expand on the positive signs from Andrew Brown’s play against Richmond? ~ HTrain90
Sabre Editor Kris Wright: I thought he consistently got better as the game progressed. Early (without knowing the defensive call of course), it looked like he lost gap integrity and overplayed some things. Later, I thought he was more gap sound by filling into what looked like the correctly assigned gap (again without knowing the defensive call of course). Beyond that, I thought his hands got better as the game went on too because it seemed like he was shedding off of blocks a little more consistently later in the game. Finally, it’s important to note that he got double teamed a lot by Richmond. A whole lot. So once he got into the flow and hit the right spots, he was forcing both blockers to be fully engaged with him vs. a chip and swivel approach. That frees up other people.
Which performance issue needs to be fixed first? ~ HOOserName
Sabre Editor Kris Wright: Anything and everything to do with running the football. On both sides of the ball. Virginia’s entire game plan – and the chances of winning too – got destroyed last week by things associated with running the football.
The offense couldn’t run the ball and as a result couldn’t get Richmond out of its preferred three-deep or four-deep zones. The Spiders didn’t need to bring extra players into the box because Virginia’s ball carriers never got there. That caused the passing game to have to stick to underneath catches against the deep defensive looks and there wasn’t much room to make plays after the catch because those zone defenses would collapse multiple tacklers around the receiver. If UVA could have created running yards, it could have forced Richmond to play defense differently and thus opened up more over the top. The defense, meanwhile, couldn’t stop the run consistently either as UR piled up 187 rushing yards at a clip of 4.6 yards per carry. That resulted in good down/distance situations, high third down conversion rates, and 39:46 of possession time. The Cavaliers couldn’t get off the field, thus limiting the offense to just 55 plays – 21 less than the Spiders. You can’t keep up on the scoreboard if you don’t have the ball.
A lot of it ties in to Chris’ answer next …
Associate Editor Chris Horne: Physicality. As a whole, I thought Richmond pushed around Virginia. I want to see more tenacity. In the trenches, first and foremost, but also when it comes to fighting through tackles, shedding blocks, etc. I just want to see more physicality and aggressiveness from this team moving forward.
How does the staff get the team to play more aggressively? November2nd 1995
Sabre Editor Kris Wright: A little more ‘will development’ in practice maybe?
Does the performance on Saturday change your trajectory on what would qualify as a successful first season? ~ CDCHoo
Sabre Editor Kris Wright: No. I had between 5-7 and 7-5 as the likely window for this year’s record and I’ll stick to it for now. One game does not a season make.
The key, of course, is how someone wants to define success. Part of the fan reaction from Saturday is based on the bar Coach Mendenhall himself set. He said in his first public appearance during a basketball game at the John Paul Jones Arena and on several occasions since then not to make December plans because the program is going bowling. The ‘it’s all I’ve ever known’ type of line. So naturally when the team lost a game to FCS Richmond, a game typically designed to jumpstart bowl goals, many fans have jumped to the conclusion that wins and bowl hopes flew the coop … thus falling short of a successful first season by Mendenhall’s statement. On the other hand, he’s also publicly said from January on that he isn’t a miracle worker, that it will take time to get things right, and that there will be improvement but that it is a steep hill to get there. By that bar, success is still firmly in play. The team will improve and some hints of it actually were evident in the opener – just not with any sort of consistency.
Associate Editor Chris Horne: I never want to overreact to any one game, particularly the first game of the season, but it’s hard not to reset expectations after seeing the way Virginia was handled against FCS-level Richmond. Perhaps the Richmond game was a fluke. For me, it was a hard dose of reality that this team has a lot more growth to undergo than I thought. If these young players develop well and you see noticeable improvement (performance-wise and mentally), bowl game or not, I think that will qualify as a successful season and good launching point for the Mendenhall era.
