The Grounds

Nice article.

Here is what I am struggling with: I do not see the talent level improving on this team next year. And generally speaking, I do not see this staff recruiting better than Groh's staff did - especially from 2002 until 2005.

So where is the uptick?

It has to be in retention (huge upside there) and coaching. It is early, but I am discouraged on both fronts. London has lost close to 10 players since arriving, and to me I attribute the lopsided losses over the last two weeks less to a talent deficit than a coaching deficit.

On offense, our gameplans seemed weak. We start FSU by looking to expose their corners, not their young / light DL. Against GT, we attack the edges instead of the interior, despite ample proof over the loast fwe weeks and the course of Groh's career here that we should have done the opposite. We favored a RB who was more likely to suceed in that strategy despite what we were seeing happen yesteday. And then there were some befudding play calls: 3rd and 2 at their 35 down by 13 in the 4th: that is clearly 4 down territory, and we pass (incomplete and a holding penalty)? WTF? And then the entire series on first and goal from the 9 on the next series.

Defensively, the result are even more concerning in that I think we have solid talent there. The DL has three solid upperclassmen in Conrath, Jenkins and Parr, a supposed rising star in Johnson, the seconday has two future NFL corners and a damn good college safety. Yet we have been absolutely daddied over the last two games - completely uncompetitive, manhandled. 4th and 1 against a team that runs the fullback 20 times a game and we don't line up a DL over center? Are you kidding?

I think the transition year under Groh was easier because by this time he was already making masive noise on the recruiting trail. Not so much this year, which leaves me very discouraged when coupled by what I see on the field.

im assuming you're basing most of what you said on stars and ratings. generally speaking those ratings are not always reflective of a players ''talent''. while many times they are spot on, like percy harvin, ryan mallett, gerald mccoy, etc. being given 5 stars. there are always players that slip under the radar, or are developed into great players. sam bradford was only a 3 stars, and he ended up being the number one draft pick. and you cant honestly say, looking at recruiting classes from say alabama and utah that they had any shot of beating them in a bcs bowl. but they did pretty easily. but they were coached well and proved those ratings wrong. even last nigth randall cobb from kentucky really by himself kept his team close to auburn, and he was only a 2 star. they dont reflect on a players work ethic and willingness to learn systems and the position better.

now speaking of uva classes only. if ratings were the only thing that showed talent, then our recent stars may never have even played. cedric peerman was only a 3 star, if we based everything on that, then mikell simpson would have started over him since he was a 4, and torrey mack would be our starter now, because payne was only a 3 and perry jones was a 2.

we cant realistically say he isnt bringing in any talent until we see how they impact the team as they come to school. just because some guys working for a website say a guy is only a 2 or 3 star doesnt mean he cant be developed into a great player (no offense JO).

you also mention that we have lost 10 players since london got here. the only player i dont need to go look up to see where he is, is quintin hunter, who is now at james madison and not making any kind of impact, so why would he here? and dominique wallace said he wanted to focus on school. do we want a guy on our team that doesnt have the passion for the game anymore? not all losses are a bad thing. theres no way he could help us if its not what he wants.

we just need to give london more time to see how the players he is getting will impact the team. stars and game film dont allow us to see what kind of kids they are and how hard they work, and character is something london has been stressing since he got here. him and his staff actually get to meet these kids and see them in a different light than we do, so we can complain about not getting the absolute best rated players, or we can do the sensible thing and trust mike london a little more and give him more time than 9 months.

(sorry for making this so long)

i do agree that we should focus on players that are at least getting recruited by other respectable schools, which i why i dont care much when there are updates on sites on players such as demetri knowles, and people like him that arent getting much, if any attention from many schools. and i also agree that georgia tech recruits well for what they need, but i hold a grudge against them for landing Jeremiah Attaochu because i really wanted him to come to uva, and hes already playing a role with them. but al groh probably had a lot to do with him going there, which makes me more angry about it.

When I look at our 2011 commitments, I see a lot of players that are very much undervalued. I won't try to list them by name but there are a half-dozen or so that I could reasonably see being upgraded by the services before their year is out. And if not, they are still excellent additions from the standpoint of potential and being high quality young men. I think retention and redshirting alone will give our program a huge boost in the out years. As Jamie pointed out, Groh's recruiting initially was coming on the heels of the very successful George Welsh years, albeit the last year or so being sub-par. London has been saddled with a myriad of negatives that are the hold overs from a very unpopular Groh. Let's remember that a great many of Groh's sizzle in recruiting turned out to be non-qualifiers and drop outs!

My number one short-term concern is settling on a QB for the future and his development. I think Lazor will be able to handle that job but he seemingly has little confidence in Verica.

Virginia moved up the list quickly but even then, I wouldn't say that Virginia is the leader. Clemson and VT seem to be the teams to beat in a five school race. Right now, I would say that UVa is somewhere around third or fourth. In the big picture, it is hard to call Hughes a longshot but within the top-five, the Cavaliers still have considerable ground to make up, IMO.