Solid recruiting haul for Mike London ... but

by toonsterwu on Feb 3, 2011 8:31 AM EST

I'm fairly impressed with the recruiting job London and Company did in their first year. It filled a lot of areas of concern for the team. Considering that the only thing they were selling is hope and themselves (and not a recent winning tradition), that's a fairly impressive job by the guys.

Defensively, with the impending graduations of a lot of guys within the next year or two, Nicholson/Phelps/Harris/Latimer/Mack are coming in at a prime time. I wish we had gotten Grant, but to get those guys, we need to win. That said, the linebackers in this class likely have a year or two to develop, as there's a fair amount of upper classmen in the next year or two, and a guy like Henry Coley should be fighting for PT. The DL will graduate a lot of guys as well in the next couple of years, and while there's some guys in the pipeline, this big crop of DL talent should help fill the gaps. I could see a lot of these guys getting redshirted, though.

Offensively, the OL will return, so the guys this year should have a year to develop, and I imagine OL will be a focus next year. On paper, we look to have added a lot of skill guys. I'm hoping Terrell and Jennings are on offense, and if so, that should add some weapons to an offense that was really lacking in punch last year. Richardson looks like a guy who could be a feature back for this team down the line.

At the end of the day, though, the one thing that needs to be stated is that this team won't go anywhere until they can develop a good QB and develop QB consistency. For me, the downfall of the Groh era wasn't all the internal issues, but rather, the inability to develop a consistent QB after Marques Hagans. Lazor's offense looks like it's a solid one that is QB friendly, which should help, but who's going to step up? We look to have a bunch of semi-intriguing guys, but until someone steps up, the program won't move forward that much.

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I've heard good things about Watford

He’s from Hampton and I think he’s Marques Hagans’ cousin, isn’t he? Either way, he signed early and has been putting in time with the weight trainers in anticipation of being involved with the offense early in his career.

Yesterday was awesome. I haven’t been this excited about Cavalier Football in a long time. Our WR corps is going to be sick in a couple of years. I also appreciate Mike London’s attitude and vision. He seems to be the kind of coach who will not squander the talents of a deep recruiting class like some people I know cough Al Groh cough.

"'And worse I may be yet. The worst is not so long as we can say 'This is the worst.'"

by Rube on Feb 3, 2011 4:10 PM EST reply actions

QB and the Groh era

There was a lot of praise about Mike Strauss last year, and I wonder how he’s coming along. My preference is that someone like Strauss or Watford wins the job (Strauss being more likely, having that extra year in the system) and owns the position for four years, giving us some stability. That said, both Metheny and Rocco have 3 more years, and honestly, if we simply get some consistency and time at the position, we’ll be fine. Rocco looked mildly more intriguing to me than Metheny last year, but both mostly got garbage time, so it’s not really fair to judge.

As for the Groh era, I don’t think he was as bad as some of the post-mortems have had. Some of his recruiting classes didn’t develop/didn’t make it here. Michael Johnson was one guy that came to mind. Olu Hall seemed like he was hyped forever. Now, it seems like once a guy got into Groh’s doghouse, he was unlikely to come out. I think the guys that were in Groh’s good graces, he developed them fairly well. The lack of internal control seems like it was a significant issue, and a lot of key players lost time/had to move on due to the problems.

Honestly, though, the failure to recruit and develop a QB the last few years of his time was the biggest issue, IMO. It wasn’t for a lack of trying through the years – Martinez, McCabe, Olsen, Lallich were all fairly well thought of prior to coming.

As a side note, I thought, at the end of his tenure, Groh started to understand how to recruit for his defense. Rather than focus on top guys, many of whom didn’t want to line up for the 3-4, guys like Zane Parr and Matt Conrath were better fits and more likely to come to the school.

Actually, side note number 2 – As excited as I am about yesterday, we’ve got to be patient. The 2009 class was fairly well thought of (for our standards). Same with 07 and 05. Hmm … maybe we recruit better in odd numbered years … j/k.

by toonsterwu on Feb 4, 2011 2:28 PM EST up reply actions

I think the guys that were in Groh’s good graces, he developed them fairly well

i guess it depends on your definition of “developed”. ahmad brooks, darryl blackstock, kai parham … these were guys who ended up as pretty good college players, but should have been dominant, and should have turned into really good pros. i put that on groh, especially as a defensive guy.

the pros that groh developed were chris long (he clearly did a good job w/ chris), and d’brick, albert and britton. not sure how much groh had to do w/ the o-linemen.

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 10, 2011 6:51 PM EST up reply actions

I'd challenge the notion that guys like Parham/Blackstock should've been dominant

Brooks, yes. That was a case of a young man that wasn’t really reined in (IMO).

The other two had average physical tools. I never viewed either of those guys as guys that should’ve been elite collegians. Parham’s lack of footspeed was able to be covered for in the 3-4 as an ILB, and Blackstock had good jump off the edge, but not elite.

By no means am I championing Groh. Clearly, he didn’t do a good enough job. That said, I would point to guys like Wali Lundy, Tony Franklin, Marcus Hamilton, Jason Snelling (never imagined Snelling would have such a solid NFL career), Brad Butler, IYC, Stupar (better pro career than I ever imagined for him), Peerman, Santi, Sintim, Applebly, Barker, Cook, and so forth as guys that Groh developed relatively well.

I guess the better way to put it is that Groh was capable of developing average talents into solid, capable players, but he was inconsistent in his ability of developing good talents into elite players.

by toonsterwu on Feb 12, 2011 7:14 PM EST up reply actions

out of your list only snelling and sintim can even be called contributors in the pros, if that’s the bar we’re going to use for “development”. in my opinion, groh completely blew it w/ lundy and franklin.

but your final point is pretty close. groh got low-ceiling achievement out of a lot of players … and got elite play out of very few. i took some pleasure in seeing ga tech’s d stink this year.

by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 22, 2011 2:29 AM EST up reply actions

I think you're coming close to Groh's problem, toonster...

He was skilled at preparing players for professional careers, but he wasn’t able to translate that skill into a cohesive football team. His W-L record should stand as a testament to his inability to achieve effective results with the host of talent that passed through the Grounds during his tenure.

I think you are spot-on in your assessment of his lack of QB success, but I think Groh’s deficiencies run much deeper. He sold himself to recruits as a coach who would prepare them for a career in the NFL, and he achieved that image at the expense of successful Virginia football teams. Who in their right mind thinks that it’s a good idea to run a 3-4 in college? The NCAA doesn’t allow for near the practice and film time that it takes to execute such a scheme.

"'And worse I may be yet. The worst is not so long as we can say 'This is the worst.'"

by Rube on Feb 14, 2011 4:04 PM EST reply actions