Which VT Player would you bet is taken first in this weekend's NFL Draft?
Feels like I have seen quite a few of our former players listed first in mock drafts.
39 Replies
1y
See both Lane and Tuten goin Day 2.
The rest Day 3.
** Edited by VTizzle at 4/24/2025, 12:45:30 PM
(In response to this post by Painterboy)
1y
Athletes , reminds me of how disappointing our results have been
(In response to this post by Painterboy)
B
BEST2VT
1y
(In response to this post by Painterboy)
1y
At least they were all conference players.
APR was leading the nation in Sacks near the end of the year and finished 2nd in the regular season I believe.
** Edited by ChrisLords at 4/24/2025, 12:55:29 AM
(In response to this post by Painterboy)
H
Hokie`79
1y
4th round or higher
(In response to this post by ChrisLords)
Dorian Strong
DBU
** Edited by kingofcassell at 4/23/2025, 7:47:25 PM
(In response to this post by Painterboy)
X
XundaVT
1y
(In response to this post by Painterboy)
1y
(In response to this post by XundaVT)
B
BEST2VT
1y
surrounded by several very middle-of-the-road players and an overall subpar coaching staff. Wasted some good talent. Makes me wonder if we need to save all our NIL money to try to have a big splash about every fourth year - joking (sort of).
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
1y
how he was used. I tend to focus on two games when it comes to this topic.
Syracuse Game - lost in overtime
- ZERO catches in an overtime game
- I know he was not targeted much at all, so not like he was targeted or blanketed and we could not get the ball to him or he dropped passes.
Clemson Game
- 2 catches for 12 years and at least one of those was late
- He spent most of the game being a decoy running out of the backfield toward the sideline. If there were intentions for him to leak out into the field for a pass, the ball had already been thrown before he could even get past the line of scrimmage
- We never even threw to ball toward him behind the LOS
I may be mixing up the Syracuse and Clemson game in terms of that backfield motion where he never touched the ball.
So it is crazy, that an NFL draft pick caught 2 passes and ran 5 times in 8 quarters of game action + over time. And if we say that he was playing with backup QBs, my response would be that a possession WR would have been a backup QBs best friend. He could easily have been targeted more.
If there was a downfall last year that contributed to the mediocre record, it was the inability to really use Lane, Felton and Jennings consistently. Even when Jennings was back on the field.... he probably averaged 1-2 catches (targets?) a game until the end.
** Edited by VAHokie89 at 4/23/2025, 6:48:02 PM
(In response to this post by GCHokieof91)
K
KCHokie2
1y
shots, but Lane made the most of his best chance last season...Lane’s usage last season was so frequently near the line of scrimmage that it almost looks telegraphed where and how he is getting the ball, leading to multiple blown-up plays." Here's hoping he's playing for Andy Reid next year.
(In response to this post by VAHokie89)
1y
It wasn't the inability to use those guys as much as it was the inability (because the offensive scheme was too often predictable AND misaligned to skill sets) to provide more opportunities. The only way to use more chefs is to make the pie bigger, not to simply re-slice the same pie.
I know it's a popular narrative now that Drones was used too much. This couldn't be more wrong. I said it a thousand times...you need to use Drones in called run opportunities 5-10 times per game to make the offense most potent. If they (Bowen) had done that consistently and stuck with it, it would have make the entire offense less predictable and would have made spreading the ball around much easier.
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 4/24/2025, 9:24:21 AM
(In response to this post by VAHokie89)
1y
I get that if the passing numbers are small, it is hard to share the pie. We threw 24 times against Clemson...several to running backs... so yeah, sure, smaller pie
We threw 37 times against Syracuse. And Lane didn't catch a pass. I don't believe he got out of the backfield much. 3 sacks reduce the 37 potential opportunities to 34...but actually using Lane as an outlet or shor pass could in theory help mitigate sacks.... ...Harrison St. Germain was targeted. Malachi Thomas was targeted. Ayden Greene got a catch. Bigger pie and Lane was not used.
Yes, the offense was predictable...That has been a criticism aimed at Bowen actually every year he has been here, even with Pry essentially calling him out during Bowen's first year AND second year ..when you think he would have learned.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
1y
it seems more like you're actually supporting my point rather than refuting it.
Schlee completed 16 of 24 for 8.6 YPA. No picks. Not world-beating, but certainly good enough to win a game - with or without Lane as a target. The issue wasn't the Offense as much as the defense whiffing on a couple of tackles to give up long TD passes.
Nevertheless, and I'd have to go back and re-watch the game to confirm this, but if I was Syracuse (or any other team), I'd put an extra guy on Lane and make the VT QB (in this case, Schlee) beat me by running or throwing to the other guys. I assume this is what Syracuse (and others) did. And by and large, Schlee was pretty successful against such a strategy.
VT did give the ball to Lane four times likely to try to take advantage of this, so it's not like they forgot he was on the field.
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 4/24/2025, 4:25:31 PM
(In response to this post by VAHokie89)
We threw it 24 times against Syracuse and 37 against Clemson.
But your point stands. He was targeted just once against Syracuse, while our most inconsistent receiver was targeted eight times (Felton). He was targeted six times against Clemson, but again, Felton was targeted for 12 of those 37 attempts. So Felton got targeted on one-third of the passing attempts in those two games. We had a 51.6% completion percentage when targeting Felton, while we had a 65.5% completion percentage when targeting Lane.
So I would agree with your take that Lane was under-utilized.
(In response to this post by VAHokie89)
V
VTCALS72
1y
is it incompletions? Or is it like calling errors vs hits in baseball, you know subjective? How are things like OL breakdowns when a rusher is in the QBs sight line to the read #1 receiver right off the snap?
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
O
ombandit
1y
I think you have to look at that first…are we saying he was wide open all day & we didn’t throw to him…
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
I'm saying he was under-utilized.
And not just for a game, but for a career. As I'll show further in today's Friday Q&A.
(In response to this post by ombandit)
1y
Wouldn't you do that if you were a DC vs VT last year - particularly if the OC often chooses not to use a below avg pocket passer/above avg runner to establish the run first?
It's not always quite as simple as just saying a RB or WR was under-utilized.
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 4/24/2025, 4:34:26 PM
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
Yes, but ultimately he only averaged 38.8 yards per game.
That's not enough for somebody who is going to be drafted.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
1y
The Stanford guy was around 28%, but several others like Concepcion, Restrepo & Fields were ~21-22%. If Lane catches another 4 or 5 passes over 13 games, he's the same as those guys. I don't have "targets" stats, but nevertheless "under-utilized" is a bit of a stretch, IMO.
It's more like the VT offensive scheme was generally ill-conceived and didn't maximize the skills of most players, not just Lane. But even if it had, I don't think Lane would have seen a much greater proportion of targets/catches going his way. His "utilization' wouldn't have differed appreciably. But he certainly would had more catches and more ypg.
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 4/24/2025, 4:58:59 PM
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
I agree that didn't maximize the skills of the receivers, for sure.
In fact, for the Q&A tomorrow, I've run some interesting numbers comparing Lane to our most recent NFL wide receivers. It's not particularly flattering for the recently-departed OC.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
1y
And to some degree, his flaws probably contributed to his "under-utilization".
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
1y
** Edited by VAHokie89 at 4/24/2025, 12:34:34 PM
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
1y
I agree 100% that he was under used.
(In response to this post by VAHokie89)
1y
Personally, I would run Drones a few more times a game. This would have likely extended drives, so there would be more opportunities to utilize Lane, et al.
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 4/24/2025, 9:15:01 AM
(In response to this post by GCHokieof91)
1y
Using Lane more would not necessarily lessen Tuten’s usage. But I definitely would have used Lane more.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
1y
(In response to this post by GCHokieof91)
1y
Tuten’s and Lane’s pieces but decrease the sizes of the pieces for the other players. My belief still stands though that Lane was under utilized.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
E
EDGEMAN
1y
But that was a feature of T-Bo's offense. Remember when he forgot Tuten was on the team in several games we lost?
(In response to this post by GCHokieof91)
R
RJHokie
1y
(In response to this post by VAHokie89)