“[The Hokies] made the plays they needed to and they won the game. That’s all that matters,” said Virginia linebacker Clint Sintim . Sounds about right to me. This game came down to three simple things in my mind. The Hokies made more plays, Tech has a great defense and Virginia has a very good defense, and the Hokies put better personnel on the field.
In the VT scouting reports, it was noted that Virginia needed to be effective running the football, to limit the big play ability of VT’s passing game, to avoid special teams breakdowns, to prevent short fields for the Hokie offense, and to win the battle on the line of scrimmage against Tech’s defensive front. The simple fact is the Hoos did none of these things consistently. They did not do enough to sustain drives. They did not contain the Tech offense’s big plays. They did not win the field position battle.
Do the grades reflect the breakdowns?
Overall Grade: 77.78 (C+)
Red Zone Efficiency: 100 (A+)
Virginia scored on both of its red zone possessions and collected 100% of its 14 potential points in the red zone.
Quarterback: 72.51 (C)
Statistical Grade: 74.19%
Subjective Grade: 70%
Bonus Points: -.5
Statistically, the unit had okay numbers from a performance standpoint, but the production was very pedestrian. We gave the quarterbacks B’s on completion percentage (61%) and first down efficiency; the key production areas of yards per attempt and third down conversions were below average. Jameel Sewell ‘s rushing yardage takes a hit due to sack yardage lost but his rushing yardage on designed runs was a solid 4.7 YPC.
As was the case with most of the offense, however, the production needed to sustain drives and enough scoring to win – neither element was there. There were five 3-and-out (or less) possessions and 10 of 13 drives produced 20 yards or...
Subscribe to read full story
Tired of low effort articles and clickbait? So are we. Subscribe to read great articles written by a full-time staff with decades of experience.
Already a subscriber? Login Here