Philosophers would have a field day with this one. No one has perfected the “Who Am I?” act better than the Virginia football offense in recent years and the winding search for an identity has led to a growing group of head-scratching performances. Wyoming just joined the list Saturday as the Cavaliers turned in another offensive nightmare.
The showing at Wyoming produced a meager 110 yards of total offense (103 passing and 7, yes 7, rushing) On an individual level, many players struggled to get anything going, though Jameel Sewell has taken the brunt of the criticism as quarterbacks often do when your team only gains 5 first downs in an entire game.
But the problem goes much deeper than that and soul searching by the players is likely far from the answer. It will take much more than “looking in the mirror” as Chris Long suggested players did this offseason.
The answer is part of a bigger picture. So let’s start with a quick question: What do you think of when you think of Virginia’s offense?
Having trouble? You could, and many quick-witted posters have and will, start with the much-maligned stretch play. But the truth is, that’s using a magnifying glass instead of a microscope. You can’t build an entire offensive system around one play and one play can’t be responsible for the ongoing struggles. Besides that, the stretch play was mostly absent in Laramie.
No, Virginia’s solution is wrapped up in a full-fledged identity crisis that is threatening to unravel the program at the seams.
Spread sets? Read option? Power football? I formation? H-back? Two tight ends? Traditional option? West Coast? Run and shoot? Throw to score, run to win? Pro set? Motion heavy? Misdirection? Trickery?
What exactly is “Virginia football” when it comes to offense?
I have no idea. And that is the problem. There is no immediately identifiable trait when it comes to the Cavaliers’ offense. The offensive coordinators have changed more than that couple from America’s Got Talent, but this isn’t – no matter how much some people want it to be – exclusively a Mike Groh thing. Virginia’s had plenty of offensive stinkers under each of those coordinators. Yes, even Bill Musgrave (215 total yards, 0 points at N.C. State in 2001 and 203 total yards, 9 points at VT in 2002).
While part of the responsibility can be placed with the coordinators, the issue is ultimately with the schemes. It’s not that they’re not good plays or that football minds would indict them as ill conceived or poorly designed. It’s more with the number of schemes, the lack of cohesion that exists between them, and the utter predictability Virginia shows within those schemes.
Listen, every team wants versatility and diverse options for the offense. Having multiple sets and different attack plans makes sense – I watched Cal roll out similar schemes seamlessly against Tennessee, but the Golden Bears are identifiable as a quick-hitting power football team that takes downfield shots on the edges. I don’t think a channel surfer could stop on a Virginia game and pick up an offensive vibe. The key is finding a way to blend it all together into a strong identity and game plan so that the program can develop consistency within itself.
If you want to be a power football team that runs the ball smashmouth style a la the UVa team with Elton Brown pulling and plowing the way, that’s fine. If you want to be a West Coast style, pick your poison operation a la Matt Schaub and company’s marquee season, that’s fine too. Option? Air Force or Wake Forest head-spinning misdirection? That’s O.K. with me too.
Whatever it is, pick something to settle on and pick it quickly. Because if the coaches don’t figure out this identity crisis soon, what started as a successful regime for Groh could end with a Camus-like jury deciding his fate.
This is a sample of what EDGE subscribers receive with their subscription. If you’re a diehard Hoo that wants to be on the inside track with the Cavaliers, make sure to Sign Up Today!
