Welcome to the Friday Feedback, which has healed a bruise, self-scouted schemes and gotten its swagger back during this open week. Just wait until I hit the ground running Monday!

Can’t tell you a whole lot about what’s gone on at WVU this week, except that I’ve heard the coaches looked at everything good and bad from the past two games and investigated how the team arrived at either outcome.

They then made plans to repeat the good outcomes and avoid the bad ones, which means reinforcing and removing things and not really adding things.

The Mountaineers went good on good for a few hours Tuesday and Wednesday, just put the ball in the turf and let the offense and defense figure a few things out with some direction from the coaches, and then backed off a little to let all the young kids go yesterday. Now the coaches are out recruiting.

That’s your week in a nutshell and it’s pretty much followed the script Dana Holgorsen unveiled Tuesday, though it sounds as though they went at one another a little more than had been advertised.

To those who (are programmed to) say “They’ll be better after the week of practice!” let me tell you that after the Texas Tech and Kansas State games, WVU said it had great practices leading up to the blowouts — Kansas State, in particular. Next week is the one that matters, but at least the Mountaineers are stringing together good weeks and maybe that builds a bridge to the one that follows.

Onto the Feedback. As always, comments appear as posted. In other words, swing your sword … or not.

Down South said:

Listening to Holgorsen’s press conference, his frustrated tone sounded exactly like some of Huggins’ press conferences during the hard times last year. I remember Huggs saying that he just couldn’t get the freshman to understand how hard they had to play all the time to be successful at this level. We are playing a whole bunch of 18- and 19-year-olds on that side of the ball. And it is hard to watch. What was that line about not being able to guard the door with a shotgun again?

Good point, good comparison, good chance I steal this and write a story.

Bobby Heenan said:

A few thoughts:

Fully agree with lowercase jeff about “future of the program” stuff. Premature.

There is incredible pressure on the offense, and it’s difficult to just focus on a play-by-play basis when in the back of your mind you’re thinking about the pile of scoring you’ve got to do to make up for the pile of crap your defense is putting out there. You abandon the run early, you go for deeper throws, you lose focus. Not good. There’s plenty of blame to go around, but at least there are games in which we can point to a good showing for the offense as proof that, yes, this can work. Not so much for the defense.

Another thing hampering the offense is the lack of playmaking at the RB position. Garrison and Buie are serviceable, but there have been so many plays where as designed they’re one-on-one with a LB or safety in the hole or just out of the hole, and they are simply unable to make that guy miss – just don’t have the quick twitch, overall speed, or moves to break it. Alston runs over some of them, but we’re missing the back with the “it” factor that can make this offense run well. Watch Kendell Hunter tapes at OSU – it makes a world of difference.

Someone stated this before on this blog, but the notion of turnovers being THE key stat for defense is asinine to me. So many turnovers simply involve some element of luck – fumbles caused, bouncing your way, a tipped pass, etc to some degree involve more happenstance than just solid tackling forcing a punt.

I going to stay away from the general statements that cover all the bases and speak to the few posts we had this week, but this one seems appropriate to serve all the interests. It’s far from doomsday, the defense is squeezing the offense, the offense lacks playmakers and a run game and the defense is leaning too much on the wrong leg. We can agree on these things, yes?

KMS said:

I have 3 texts stuck in my phone that “failed to send” due to the awesome reception at MPS. I’ll just say that they would require a lot of brackets.

I booed, and I left. Both of which I regret doing now, but I couldn’t endure the emotional caning that was being handed out by this team. Players and coaches alike.

Emotional caning! And why feel bad about booing? No one felt bad about celebrating the touchdown that cut Kansas State’s lead to 55-14.

Jeff in Akron said:

I am reminded of a Oll Stew post game interview following the UConn loss two years ago where he stated our great defense wasn’t doing enough to win games because they weren’t creating enough turnovers. Afterward Colin and Mike were debating that turnovers in football were like pitchers getting hits in baseball. I thought that was an excellent analogy.

I ask you, how many baseball teams would depend on winning by counting on their pitchers getting timely hits every game? Have there been instances where that were the case, yes. Is it an accepted form of offensive production in baseball, not at all. Alas, counting on a defense to generate points every game is unacceptable. I would be elated if the defense would just force two punts a half at this point.

It’s a complementary piece, an accessory. You can try and get them and you can try to feature them, but it’s never the sole focus. No one is going to a black tie event wearing just cuff links or just a broach. The problem within this is that WVU’s players have had chances and couldn’t get the ball. Couldn’t even get at the ball. And say what you want about the philosophy and how it’s implemented, but it is part of DeForest’s goal. He wants, and expects, three a game. They had 17 in the three practices before the Kansas State game. If you can’t get stops, if you give up yards and points, you need to get the ball back. WVU doesn’t. These aren’t really debatable issues.

JC said:

Subpar talent in the defensive upperclassman, couple injuries to defensive starters, playing 10-12 freshman in the defensive rotation, facing four of the best offenses in the country so far (not counting our own in practice), on top of a first year coordinator who had never been one before = recipe for disaster. That being said, to take the “talent” we generally recruit and not be able to coach them out of the cellar is what’s alarming. It’s probably too early to say this, but if HCDH keeps backing the wrong horse (a la Stew w/Mullen), his tenure may be short lived.

With all the pressure to score, if the offense starts slowly (which Holgs teams have been known for), its apparent they lose confidence quickly, fall out of rythmn, and give in to the situation. That’s 100% on the coaches as well……..

These are all issues masked in the preseason that are being unveiled right now. I think that they exist is one issue. That they have existed for so long and seem to have arrived as a surprise is a different issue altogether.

Rugger said:

Patterson was the DC at Pitt last year and they had a decent defense. I recall he and Joe were co-DC’s. Is that still he case? I would assume Patterson has called defensive plays. Does anybody know what is up w this arrangement?

Let’s Go Mountaineers!

Well, this won’t help you feel any better, but to tell the Patterson story properly is to tell you Pitt, which had a nice defense last season, was pretty bad at the start and struggled with the transition to what Patterson wanted. The he started changing plays and players and found some guys were better in new spots and some players were more comfortable with new ideas. Then it took off quite nicely. Surf through their 2011 rankings.  

rekterx said:

Slump? I ain’t buying it.

Oh, I expect them to not be as ineffective as they have been the last two games. But I do not expect them to come roaring back to where they were.

If they are slumping it is because the other team is punching them in the mouth. And the other teams are not going to stop doing that.

So much for some buffoon posting on a blog that this offense could be one of the greatest to ever grace a college football field. What was he thinking about? He should have remembered how it struggled in the BE last year.

Onto another subject (defense) someone mentioned that TCU plays a lot of freshmen by necessity. Let’s take a look at how they are doing on defense because … well … uh … we play them next. Right?

And 9-3 would be a great accomplishment. It would also be great if hundred dollar bills grew on trees.

So

Yeah, who was that guy making that prediction? As for TCU, I don’t want to ruin your day, but young or not, the Horned Frogs do something on defense I’ve never seen before and it’s pretty effectice. I know an assistant coach called it “unique.” More on that next week.

Mack said:

I thought the offense looked unstoppable . . . in the first game of the season. Then, it had a scat back (Buie), power back (Alston), great quarterback (Geno), short-range receiver (Tavon), and a deep threat (Stedman).

Since then, Alston has essentially been out. In the past two games, Stedman has been completely ineffective for one reason or another. Plus, the great quarterback couldn’t throw it where he wanted against Texas Tech.

What I’m getting at . . . As you take the pieces away, the offense isn’t as good. Tavon, in my opinion, has been consistent all season. But when you’re all of a sudden the only player that the defense fears, then they all swarm you and you lose your big play ability. When none of the other players are taking advantage of the opening that you’ve created, then the offense scores 7 points.

Agreed and let’s not discount the offensive line and the increasing quality of the opposing defensive lines. But if you’re missing parts, it’s hard to function like you did at full strength. The odd part is this offense is engineered to motor on when one avenue is closed because that action by the defense is supposed to open another avenue for the offense. Not seeing that.

Dave said:

Bring back Jeff Mullen … and $5 beers.

Dave!

Mack said:

“I still think it odd that Holgorsen was brought in to improve on Stewart’s regular season records of 9-3. Now we are hoping for that very 9-3 record.”

I knew these comments were coming. Claiming that 9-3 in the Big East (especially in a year that UConn won the Big East. Think about that for a second. UConn won the conference) is comparable to what WVU is facing now is insane.

I agree that the jury is certainly out on Holgorsen, but his hiring was a swing for the fences, which I will always be in favor of. He’s been here one-and-a-half years and he’s won a BCS bowl and won at Texas. Sort of like the president with the economy, his job will be judged on whether he gets the defense turned around. Most probably believe that the offense and special teams will follow suit if the defense gets fixed.

One other thing, as bad as the special teams has been, we haven’t been fumbling kick or punt returns. We haven’t been getting punts blocked. And our kicker is still fairly reliable from inside of 45 yards. If WVU brought in a good punter, I think the outlook on the special teams would change very quickly.

I’m going to disagree with you on special teams — though Tavon was, at last, terrific against Kansas State. But that’s been iffy and punt returns are a hold-your-breath moment because you never know what he’s going to do back there. Two punts have been blocked and someone seems to get close every other time. Field goals get blocked a lot. Bitancurt, who’s had seven FGAs blocked in his career, has been shaky from 40 yards and out — though he seems to make clutch ones. And how many times have a shoestring tackle stopped a kick return from going far, and maybe all the way, this season? I get excited when WVU is about to do something on special teams because it’s almost always eventful.

JC said:

Any chance Patterson, or especially Dunlap, get some additional input defensive schemes? Dunlap was the architect of one of the best WVU defenses ever……couldn’t hurt, right?

Shame on DeForest if he doesn’t confer with those gentlemen … but I bet this is a regular occurrence. 

oklahoma mountaineers said:

He’s saying essentially the same thing he said after the game…….I don’t think he’s a bad guy, but I find it a little hard to believe that the back end should not be improving at least a little bit at this point in the season.

We are playing Freshman everywhere on the defensive side of the ball — all three levels. I’d say (and maybe I’m wrong) that the place we should be having the most problem is holding up the best. 18 year old boys playing against 20-21 year old men should be a mismatch, yet the run defense, when they have bothered to try, has held up for the most part pretty well.

LBs against the run — pretty good. Pass coverage is harder to tell, but they don’t seem to be the ones made to look bad unless you get an inside guy matched up on a slot receiver.

DBs and safeties seem totally outgunned/overmatched/overwhelmed. Two straight plays against KSt had the DB playing 8-12 yards off, yet the guy ran past them with little/no move — that shouldn’t happen at any level, much less D-I college performers.

To quote Dan Hawkins, what do they expect……THIS IS THE BIG 12…..BIG BOY FOOTBALL.

Run defense has been very acceptable, but those same guys can’t pass rush. That hurts. The linebackers, to me, have fatigued the past few weeks and maybe that’s why you saw more bodies last week. The secondary is just a mess. Not to keep harping on this cushion crisis, but I’ve become so conditioned to it that I’ve simply accepted it and began to pay attention to it. I’m alarmed by how bad technique is in the cushion. They’re caught flat-footed or off balance quite a bit. 

Mack said:

I get the feeling just from absorbing everything I’ve seen that the defense did not expect Kansas State to throw the ball as much as it did. I think it thought that it would hide its horrible secondary for one week and be able to get by in this game by stopping the run. If the secondary would’ve slowed Klein at all, then that may have worked out… but I’m not sure that this secondary could stop Pat White throwing to Syracuse’s receivers.

DeForest was asked about that. He said Klein can throw and WVU was ready for it. I see no coincidence that a team that was 70-30 run-pass was 52-48 in the first half against the nation’s worst pass defense.

Bobby Flinton said:

Like I said before…I got a suggestion. Coaches are looking for “leaders” but turning to freshmen…how about putting in #39 Nick Cadwell (DB)? He’s a fifth-year senior and a helluva leader on the defensive scout team. He wins scout team awards constantly. Tavon’s even asked him to ease up because he’s so aggressive. Isn’t that the kind of player we’re looking for?

I endorse this. Why the hell not? No comment on Tavon begging out of Nick Cadwell’s business, though.

philip said:

injuries and depth are beyond coaching right now. (young and thin may work for supermodels, but not so much for football teams.)

Scratching that one from the record. Might steal it, as well!

 Rugger said:

I don’t believe Joe was Dana’s first choice. There were rumors of Brian Stewart (now at Maryland w an 11th ranked defense) but then rumors of Venable afforded Edsall the opportunity to hire Stewart. Venables declines and some guy named Mike
Smith is hired and resigns in a few days. After all of that Joe eta al are hired. Plan C at best.

I wonder how many DC’s are interested in coaching w Dana as the offense puts a ton of pressure on the D. Art Briles,at Baylor seems to have the exact same problem….funny.

Those aren’t all rumors. I think Stewart was embellished, but there was something to the Venables  talk. Meantime, DeForest was on the staff and answering questions about his status at WVU by saying he was here to work with Dana in whatever capacity Dana desired. Mike Smith at least brought smoke to our attention, which makes your last point … intriguing. Phil Bennett has been, at times, a good defensive coach.

Dave said:

I can only imagine the heat Stewart would have taken giving up 50pts/week.

I can get down with that, but understand the way Stewart dealt with the heat is very different. I’ll leave it at that.

Jeff in Akron said:

Strange that one twenty minute video would make me feel this much better. In fact, I might just have to drink some Kool-Aid tonight. Who am I kidding…

/grabs the bottle of tequila and a 6-pack of Nesteas
//a 6-pack of Nesteas that cost less than $8 by the way
///checks cupboard to make sure there is Kool-Aid just in case

Ohhh yeah!

JC said:

It’s funny how a lot of us fans, and sometimes even reporters, question things and propose “new” ideas as if the coaches have never thought of them before. I’m as guilty as anyone else, but it just struck me as funny to hear a reporter do that and be given that response from HCDH.

I’m telling you now, I told you then, but they’ve been mixing and switching stuff up since the Baylor game. It’s not a new problem to the coaches.

ffejbboc said:

Mike, there might be frost on Dana’s pumpkin, but how hot are DeForest and Roberts’ peppers?

Chipolte? Jalapeno? Or are we talking Habanero territory?

This will disappoint you: I’ll give you Peppadew for DeForest and Aji dulce for Roberts. But the waiter is loitering around the table.

Jeff in Akron said:

From Akron, I thought Snyder showed a ton of class after the game when he put his hands on Geno’s shoulders and spoke to him. I don’t know what he said and that isn’t really the point. It was obvious Snyder was offering words of encouragement, that’s as classy as it gets.

Plus, there was a lot of static going around about the field goal that K-State kicked to make it 55. Snyder is doing his best to position his team for a title run, that field goal was one way he could do that, nothing more. If Holgorsen and WVU were in the same position they would have done the same exact thing.

Snyder sends hand-written notes to opposing players and coaches he appreciates. I’m just getting to know him, but I’ve never seen a coach as admired or respected as universally as Snyder.

Mack said:

I’m a fan of injecting Mike Valenti ranting into any appropriate situation, but I don’t see it here. And it hadn’t even crossed my mind. Kansas State destroyed West Virginia. I don’t think that is Mike Valenti-appropriate.

A “Valent,” in my opinion, is when your team is clearly – or at the very least, probably – better than the other team yet is unable to stand up to the least bit of adversity. If your team is completely reliant on one player when times get tough, this helps. Off the top of my head, here are some WVU “Valentis” from recent years:

All losses to USF in the RichRod era.
13-9
The loss to Brian Brohm-led Louisville.
Pat White’s entire senior season.

I’ll discuss Valenti in any venue. I just think it was territory where you might see a meltdown and could definitely see someone savagely attack the defensive coordinator. The situations do not precisely parallel one another, but you have some common threads. Your four examples are no less valid, though.

Sam said:

The Valenti Line ought to become a thing in sports, as in, if a friend says, “Woah, you’ve crossed the Valenti Line…” then maybe it’s time to calm down. And have some tea. Because you’re gonna ruin your voice for the rest of the show.

… so let’s use it here. Starting right now. I’m certain it’s been crossed at least six times the past two weekends.

JC said:

Since they are going back to spring practice, the silver lining may be that both sides looked good in the spring game……..
*opens Sugar-free Red Bull*
*pounds head with a hammer*

Enjoy the weekend!