What Happened at Vanderbilt
A surprising result, but not a shocking one; certainly not the end of the world
The Hokies lost in disappointing fashion on Saturday in what was, nonetheless, a very exciting1 opening week game at Vanderbilt.
Virginia Tech looked like the team with the higher ceiling, and if the game were played 10 times, the Hokies would probably win 7.
But not if they play like they did in this game2.
For the Hokies, the surprise came early when Vanderbilt refused to just roll over for them.
Shell-shocked
I’ve read a lot of commentary regarding Brent Pry’s postgame comment about being “shell-shocked” for half the game. The full quote, as reported by Andy Bitter of Techsideline, reads as follows:
“We’ve got to be better than that,” Pry said. “We all got shell-shocked a little bit. I think it was, ‘Let’s go. Let’s settle down and play like we’re capable.’ I don’t know. Obviously, we didn’t play our best or coach our best in the first half. We just didn’t. And that goes back to me.”
It seems like many fans are reading that statement to mean that it took the Hokies a full two quarters to make schematic adjustments.
But Pry was not talking about the scheme. He was talking about getting the players in the right frame of mind to play well. What seemed to surprise the Hokies, more than anything, is that Vanderbilt had big, strong, talented players, too.
That fact should not have been a surprise. Here is a high school recruiting comparison between the two schools, according to 247Sports:
2024: VT - 47th nationally, 87.75 avg; Vanderbilt - 42nd, 86.87
2023: VT - 44th, 86.91; Vanderbilt - 69th, 85.86
2022: VT - 43rd, 86.55; Vanderbilt - 45th, 86.59
2021: VT - 44th, 85.38; Vanderbilt - 49th, 85.12
2020: VT - 77th, 85.31; Vanderbilt - 54th, 85.06
For the last five years, Tech has brought in, on average, the 51st ranked high school recruiting class. During that same time period, Vanderbilt’s average class ranked 52nd.
As Lee Corso would say, “Yo!”
And, as I highlighted in Friday’s preview, with only a small talent advantage, and an influx of new players and coaches for Vanderbilt, losing the game was always a possibility:
This year, Tech is #52 in team talent, up from #59 last year, but still a far cry from its #34 ranking in 2000.
So, how can expectations be so high for a team with such middling talent?
Cohesiveness (most of the starters return from 2023)
Culture (guys like the program and the coaches, and everyone is seemingly bought-in)
Development (many of the players have spent multiple off-seasons in Blacksburg, and after a few down years, the developmental aspect of the program appears once again to be on the rise)
Still, if Tech were to struggle some at Vandy, it would be because the Hokies are only slightly more talented across the board. And when I say talented, what I really mean is the demand level for the players on the two rosters when they were recruited is nearly equal.
Vanderbilt played like they believed they were at a talent disadvantage, perhaps giving the Hokies too much credit.
The Commodores used a lot of the play clock on each down in order to shorten the game. They were selectively aggressive, much like the 2014 Hokies were at Ohio St. They were also lucky - none of their three fumbles resulted in turnovers.
All that aside, as the numbers demonstrate, Vanderbilt simply outplayed Tech in a few key areas.
Importantly, during what was a gutting loss for Virginia Tech, there were no body language issues, no arguments on the sideline, and no personal foul penalties on the field. The team stuck together, erased a 17-point deficit and took the lead with five minutes left, only to eventually lose it in Nashville’s sweltering heat.
Hokies still waiting for offensive line talent to mature
The biggest problem the 2024 Hokies have is that the more talented offensive linemen are generally young and inexperienced. Many are still a year or two from being ready to play.
Three linemen played pretty well (Xavier Chaplin and Moore brothers), but Parker Clements and Layth Ghannam struggled.
In the case of Clements, it’s a talent issue. Coming out of high school, 247Sports rated him an 84, which is low three-star territory. Experience counts for a lot, and there isn’t much the four-year starter hasn’t seen, but Clements’ physical limitations do place a noticeable cap on the line’s potential as a unit.
Layth Ghannam, on the other hand, received an 88 rating as a senior in high school, which correlates to a high three-star prospect.
With two linemen struggling so much, it should be no surprise that Bhayshul Tuten could not find many running lanes, and Kyron Drones faced more pressure than most would have expected.
Drones was magnificent, but his workload was unsustainable
Kyron Drones played perhaps his best game as a Hokie on Saturday, as reflected by his preliminary PFF grade (83.2).
He completed 22 of his 33 passes for 322 yards and 2 touchdowns. His lone interception came when a pass was tipped at the line of scrimmage. He was poised, bailed out bad blocking on numerous occasions, and looked more accurate and more confident as he progressed through his reads.
The most glaring number, though, was 16, as in the number of times Drones carried the football, which was 53% of the team total. On such a hot day, and with little in the way of holes to run through, that is just too much.
And no, that’s not a slight on Tyler Bowen. He called the only plays that were working, even if only a little. The offensive line just needs to open more holes for the running backs.
Defensive struggles were out wide, and at all three levels
Among the Hokie defenders who played the bulk of the snaps at their respective positions, three players registered negative net PFF grades:
Cole Nelson (DE) - 55.4
Keonta Jenkins (Star LB) - 54.3
Mansoor Delane (CB) - 48.5
Delane had an especially rough day, but surely part of the reason he was caught multiple times peeking into the backfield instead of guarding his man was because the Hokies failed time and again to contain the edge on Diego Pavia.
Up the middle, the Hokies played well. Aeneas Peebles and Josh Fuga both graded out well at DT (69.4 and 69.3, respectively). In addition, Sam Brumfield (63.8) and Keli Lawson (63.2) were serviceable at the two inside linebacker positions, which is a big improvement over last year.
Finally, the safeties played well. Jalen Stroman dealt with injuries, which limited his playing time, but Jaylen Jones (67.1) and Mose Phillips (60.0) held up well in his absence.
Putting it all together
To wrap things up, let’s zoom out and look at what the advanced stats tell us happened in this game.
Virginia Tech’s was the more explosive offense (1.58 to 1.28 in offensive explosiveness3), both on the ground (0.90 to 0.87) and through the air (1.98 to 1.89).
The Hokies offensive line also allowed a much lower stuff rate (15% vs. 24%).
However, returning to the earlier comment about Vanderbilt being selectively aggressive, the Commodores made big plays when it mattered most, winning the EPA4 battle 0.29 to 0.26.
The big, glaring disparity was in offensive passing play EPA. Virginia Tech’s mark of 0.41, if measured over the course of an entire season, would be excellent - among the elite teams in college football.
The Hokies defense, however, allowed a ludicrous 0.92 to Vanderbilt. That single stat, more than any other, is the reason the Hokies lost the football game.
The excitement index for the game was high, at 7.8.
As defined by collegefootballdata.com:
Excitement Index is a measure of how exciting a game was to watch. It accomplishes this by measuring swings in win probability throughout the course of the game. The more extreme swings between both teams, the higher the excitement index will be.
Virginia Tech’s post-game win probability was only 2.4%.
Post-game win probability looks at advanced metrics like success rates, PPA, and scoring opportunities and assesses the probability of each team winning should the game be played again with equivalent stats. In other words, if you take all of the plays in a game and shuffle them into a random order, how often would each team be expected to win?
Explosiveness measures the average EPA on plays which were marked as successful.
Expected Points (EP) assumes that not all yard lines are created equal. In other words, each yard line is assigned a point value and measures the number of points that would be expected to be scored based on down, distance, and field position. A negative value means that the opposing team would be expected to score the next points in the game.
Expected Points Added (EPA) uses Expected Points to measure the outcome of a play. It takes the EP value from the beginning of a play (e.g. 2nd and 5 at the 50) and subtracts it from the EP value resulting from the play (e.g. rush for 10 yards results in 1st and 10 from the 40).