I've seen a few questions not only in the last few weeks but also most of last year asking if MY will "change his system" to complement the roster. The short answer is he already did, and David wrote a good article today in Q&A with a quote where MY mentioned he would essentially adapt as he feels is necessary. I think the average fans thinks "changing the system to complement the roster" means either a large change in philosophy or a complete overhaul and that simply isn't the case (nor should it ever be the case). The only time in which a complete philosophy change is necessary and positive is if you never had conviction in what you were teaching before (or you weren't teaching it properly). I think we can safely say that with a track record of success over three decades that MY certainly has conviction in what he is teaching. From a fundamental standpoint, you don't want to overhaul your principles offensively or defensively because when it comes time to get the roster you would like again, then everyone will be set back to zero in learning those core principles (or you'll paint yourself into a corner teaching principles you don't fully believe in). My can rely on Hammond to teach other PGs some of the core principles as a supplement to the coaching staff with an ability to relay what he is seeing and what they will see when they're in the game. Schutt and Johnson can do the same for the wings. Lawal can do the same for the posts. If MY had changed his philosophy wholesale last season, he wouldn't have that base to start with nor the help from the different voices within the program. So if not offense and defense, what did he change? It wasnt in transition, that's for sure. The Hokies played a similar pace of play last season as they have in other years. That's what you would expect and want from a program designed around efficiency. Where the largest change came from was rebounding, especially offensive rebounding. In previous years, MY has valued transition defense over offensive rebounds. To think about this simply, MY has sent 1 or 2 players to the glass when his team shoots a shot and has sent 3 or 4 players in transition to cover up any fast break opportunities should there be a miss. This has meant less opportunities for his offenses, but also less transition opportunities for the opponent, where teams are usually most efficient. He is able to have this philosophy because he recruits players who can shoot the ball very well. If you make shots at a higher rate, your need for offensive rebounding decreases. So if you can be efficient offensively without extra possessions AND keep other teams from scoring in transition then you can slowly suffocate an opposing team into playing your style. But what happens when your teams can't shoot as well? This is where MY changed his philosophy the most. In 2024-2025, MY consistently sent 2 or 3 players to the offensive glass (sometimes 4 depending on the opponent and his lineup) and sent 2 players back in transition. I think you can guess how that changed things. VT got way more offensive rebounding opportunities which buoyed their offensive efficiency, but in turn they were worse in defensive transition tanking their defensive efficiency. Unfortunately, he didn't have much of a choice because if he had stayed with his philosophy then the team would still be very bad offensively but with even less opportunities, but the defense would still be very young and, at best, an average to below average defending team. Making a tactical change in sending more to the glass while trying to teach transition defense to limit the opportunities was the only way they were going to make things work. The change in offensive rebounding strategy worked immensely. The transition defense was poor. Here is where MYs team have ranked in offensive rebounding percentage the last 3 seasons: 2023 - 263rd 2024 - 298th 2025 - 155th They nearly cut their rank in half. Playing the same number of possessions and shooting a similar number of shots, there isn't so much of a personnel gap that would account for that large of a jump. This was a concerted effort to make up for a lack of shooting when compared to previous seasons. It was similar when Tyrece Radford played at VT, they actually ranked 168th at one point. That wasn't because Tyrece Radford was an amazing offensive rebounder (he averaged 5 ORB per 100 possessions his first year at VT, 4.16 ORB per 100 possessions in his time at Texas A&M...which means he was simply sent more at VT), but rather a tactical change to take advantage of what he did well. Radford could rebound well, but it wasn't like he did something other-worldly to achieve those numbers. He was 6'2 with a 6'5 wingspan and above average athleticism. Compare that to Tobi Lawal, who is 6'8 with a 6'10 wingspan and 800 million inch vertical leap. You would think he would far outpace Radford in ORB per 100 poss. Nope... Radford freshman year: 5 ORB/100 poss Lawal first year at VT: 5.3 ORB/100 poss (DOWN from 6.9 ORB/100 poss the previous year at VCU) So what's going on here? This is why the tactical change worked. Most teams, when playing a team who prioritizes transition defense, will double (or "bracket") the opposing teams larger rebounders and let their bigs go and get the ball defensively. This meant Lawal was seeing more bodies when trying to offensive rebound than someone like Radford would see. As a matter of fact, many times Radford had a free run at the rim to rack up offensive rebounds. As you can imagine, if Lawal had a free run he would average nearly double digits in offensive rebounds alone. Tyler Johnson averaged 3.8 ORB/100 poss which is in line with Radford's 2nd season at VT (3.6 ORB/100 poss). For reference, Justyn Mutts averaged 3.93 ORB/100 poss in his three seasons at VT, topping out at 4.9 in his middle season. Tyler Johnson also isn't a physical freak, he just was sent to the glass more than others in a similar position. The other thing you can do to cater your system to your team is to run actions that put people in places where their skills are useful. That does NOT mean you have to run sets that are different from what you have always done (as a matter of fact, it helps if all your sets have a similar look) but rather you can change what the primary reads are or run particular plays more that you know the outcomes will lead to putting players in proper position to use their skill set. Those are the changes you saw from MY last season and I think you will see a watered down version of that this season. I don't think Johnson or Avdalas will be sent to the glass as much offensively, but I also don't think you'll see VT completely sell out on defensive transition like they have in the past. If Bedford, Pasha, Johnson, Avdalas and Schutt can all improve their shooting marginally then you could see them shift closer to a defensive transition focus, but I think it is more likely a tamer version of last year and Radford's freshman year is what you see. I would bet early on in the season they will prioritize transition defense, because that is the ideal state of the philosophy. They will test it out against OOC opponents and then adjust as the season goes along. My belief is it will wind up being closer to what I've explained above than what they've done in the past. That's a lot of words to say when I see people ask "will MY change his system"? Well, he already has! ** Edited by GCHokie34 at 6/26/2025, 3:05:44 PM