This whole passing nonsense

Discussing Army Black Knights football, basketball and more. United States Military Academy sports forum. West Point athletics discussion board.
User avatar
LoneStarPhan
New Recruit
Posts: 873
Joined: December 2016
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
x 1
x 11
Contact:

Re: This whole passing nonsense

Post by LoneStarPhan » Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:56 pm

I note that Sal writes that 14 of the Army passes came after they fell behind by 3 scores late in the third quarter.
0 x

losttribe
New Recruit
Posts: 120
Joined: December 2016
x 1
Contact:

Re: This whole passing nonsense

Post by losttribe » Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:34 pm

wpgrad wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:16 pm
ArmyinSoCal wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 5:45 pm
I can't believe how shallow most of you are. Losttribe is the only guy who seems to be able to watch the game and come up with a decent analysis. The Army offense did not lose that game; the Defense and Special Teams did. The Duke defense is big and fast and the fullback dive would not have worked with 11 defenders within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. This offense is going to be awesome and it will be led by the fullback dive, but that was not going to work on Friday. This will be the offense we always wanted, Duke was just a really tough opponent to start with. Watch them through the year, that defense is going to give the ACC fits.

GO ARMY!
Thanks Kirk Herbsteit. A few shallow replies
1) I am not sure what "this will be the offense we always wanted" is supposed to mean. I don't want an offense that passes the ball 21 times. I want an offense that passes like once a game
2) Every team we play "stacks the box". It is what it is
3) This idea that Duke is all of the sudden the '85 bears is a joke. Duke is a good solid middle of the road ACC team, and will end up like 7-5 or 8-4 at best. And will finish like 7th or 8th overall in the ACC. Duke has 1 NFL type lineback and 1 very good College linebacker.
4) We proved last year that our no pass, run the ball even when they stack the box, playing against a top 25 type team offense would work. San Diego State, need I remind everyone, was 10-2 coming into our bowl game. They beat Stanford. They were 26th or 27th in total votes for the top 25 poll, and had they beat Army, they would have finished 11-2 and probably about 23rd in the final poll. And their defense and athleticism certainly was equivalent to Duke. Their coach was a defensive "Guru" with "option experience." And we ran the ball down their throat.
5) We need our QB to be the best running QB on our team. If that is hopkins, then RUN HIM. If hopkins is our best passer but 2nd or 3rd best runner compared to for instance Thomas, then put in the runner.
6) All the great option teams of the last 40 years. Oklahoma under switzer. Nebraska. The great navy teams under Paul Johnson. etc... And not one of the ever said "hey we are going to run the wishbone/option but, see, we are smarter than everyone else, so WE are going to run the wishbone/option but we are going to throw it 25 times!!! They'll never know what hit 'em!!" Never ever happened once, but all the sudden Army is the smartest guy in the room and we are going to do it? C'mon, it doesn't pass the sniff test at all
7) Yes our defense and special teams sucked. That why you run the ball and run the clock and have those awesome 8-minute drives. You keep them off the field.
You're the guy with the answers after one game and everyone else is Kirk Herbstreit? C'mon....

Re your number 5: let's imagine Hopkins is the second best running QB on the team by a small margin but the best passing one by a large margin. It is not surprising he will get the nod.

There probably is no QB close to Bradshaw on the roster as a runner. The production will have to be made up in other ways from other positions. When teams stopped the dive last year, Bradshaw made them pay. Can Hopkins do the same? Well, yes if he throws 4 for 7 for 75 yards and is a competent runner and distributor as well.

I don't think we will see as many passes the rest of the way but if you think one is optimum with this roster, I don't see it.
0 x

armyfan1993
New Recruit
Posts: 305
Joined: December 2016
x 20
x 10
Contact:

Re: This whole passing nonsense

Post by armyfan1993 » Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:13 pm

LoneStarPhan wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:56 pm
I note that Sal writes that 14 of the Army passes came after they fell behind by 3 scores late in the third quarter.
This is absolutely getting overlooked. Ideally, yes, Army puts together 8-minute drives that kill the clock and maintain possession throughout the game. But by the end of the 3rd quarter, they couldn't afford to do that, meaning they needed to start passing more. Put together one of those drives once they are down 3 scores, and you're down 2 scores with what, 5 minutes to go? That's not feasible.

The end number of "21 pass attempts" is a reflection of the score and the need to pass to pick up bigger yards, not a drastic change of gameplan from the onset of the game. Yes they passed early in the game too, sometimes at times where we were surprised, but acting like this is the Bobby Ross days of a pro-style, passing offense and the option is being completely abandoned is ridiculous. People on this board pined last year for some semblance of a passing attack last year even when rushing the ball was going great. Now, people flip at the sight of any forward pass. I don't get it.

Hopkins was 5 for 8 for 70ish yards at one point in the third quarter. That would be an excellent complement for the option if everything is clicking **which it was not during this Duke game**. Navy had Reynolds who could run and pass. Air Force has had guys who can run and pass. Why can't Army utilize a guy who can run and pass?
0 x

wpgrad
New Recruit
Posts: 442
Joined: December 2016
x 7
x 35
Contact:

Re: This whole passing nonsense

Post by wpgrad » Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:34 pm

armyfan1993 wrote:
Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:13 pm
LoneStarPhan wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:56 pm
I note that Sal writes that 14 of the Army passes came after they fell behind by 3 scores late in the third quarter.
This is absolutely getting overlooked. Ideally, yes, Army puts together 8-minute drives that kill the clock and maintain possession throughout the game. But by the end of the 3rd quarter, they couldn't afford to do that, meaning they needed to start passing more. Put together one of those drives once they are down 3 scores, and you're down 2 scores with what, 5 minutes to go? That's not feasible.

The end number of "21 pass attempts" is a reflection of the score and the need to pass to pick up bigger yards, not a drastic change of gameplan from the onset of the game. Yes they passed early in the game too, sometimes at times where we were surprised, but acting like this is the Bobby Ross days of a pro-style, passing offense and the option is being completely abandoned is ridiculous. People on this board pined last year for some semblance of a passing attack last year even when rushing the ball was going great. Now, people flip at the sight of any forward pass. I don't get it.

Hopkins was 5 for 8 for 70ish yards at one point in the third quarter. That would be an excellent complement for the option if everything is clicking **which it was not during this Duke game**. Navy had Reynolds who could run and pass. Air Force has had guys who can run and pass. Why can't Army utilize a guy who can run and pass?
I never pined for a passing attack, lol. I like us having 85 plays and running 84 of them.

The issue I had with the passing was, as I posted elsewhere, I think we tried to get "cute." When you pass on the first play of the game, that is getting getting cute and saying "hey, look at our new toy, he can throw!!" When you pass on 3rd and 5, after a 2017 season in which you took great pride in the idea that 3rd and 5 meant an automatic 2 downs, that is getting cute.

Thats my problem with this whole passing nonsense. it takes us away from our core principle, our core strength, our core ability.
0 x

kfan12
New Recruit
Posts: 60
Joined: December 2016
x 12
Contact:

Re: This whole passing nonsense

Post by kfan12 » Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:41 pm

Army's offensive problem arose from two things and it wasn't passing: fumbling the ball 5 times (twice losing it, and even when you keep it a fumble usually ends up killing an option team drive) and doing what the heck ever that was with the FB playing QB, which didn't work at all. Really missed/blocked FGs = turnovers as well. Aside from being outmanned a bit by Duke's O Line, the teams are pretty evenly matched. The stuff Army does well would have worked, but the fumblitus of Monken's first three years returned with a vengeance in this game. I think in 2016 they averaged more than 5 fumbles a game (3+ turnovers).

Threw this game away by not taking care of the ball and getting cute in the backfield, not by passing too much.
0 x


hrm
New Recruit
Posts: 114
Joined: December 2016
Contact:

Re: This whole passing nonsense

Post by hrm » Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:27 pm

kfan12 wrote:
Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:41 pm
Army's offensive problem arose from two things and it wasn't passing: fumbling the ball 5 times (twice losing it, and even when you keep it a fumble usually ends up killing an option team drive) and doing what the heck ever that was with the FB playing QB, which didn't work at all. Really missed/blocked FGs = turnovers as well. Aside from being outmanned a bit by Duke's O Line, the teams are pretty evenly matched. The stuff Army does well would have worked, but the fumblitus of Monken's first three years returned with a vengeance in this game. I think in 2016 they averaged more than 5 fumbles a game (3+ turnovers).

Threw this game away by not taking care of the ball and getting cute in the backfield, not by passing too much.
^^^This, along with some vapid tackling and missed kicks. The passing game neither helped nor hurt us at Duke, at least by comparison.
0 x

User avatar
RABBLE
New Recruit
Posts: 28709
Joined: December 2016
x 44
Contact:

Re: This whole passing nonsense

Post by RABBLE » Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:01 pm

I thought we had a 2nd string QB in Langdon or Thomas. Why did we use Walker at times? I just did not understand our coaching last Friday. It seemed so different than a year ago. We tried things that Monken would not do a year ago. We passed a lot and we could not advance the ball. I have to question our QBs performance and the lack of an experienced OL. Just my thoughts on this.
0 x

kfan12
New Recruit
Posts: 60
Joined: December 2016
x 12
Contact:

Re: This whole passing nonsense

Post by kfan12 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:50 pm

the O line was capable of the job I think...
0 x

BigNick
New Recruit
Posts: 167
Joined: December 2016
x 3
Contact:

Re: This whole passing nonsense

Post by BigNick » Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:55 am

I have watched the game two more times from the tape. I do not believe that we lost by 3 TDs due to a lack of effort. Of course the turnovers and penalties were a big difference but I think I saw the basic reason for our troubles on the defensive side.

That trouble is team speed on offense and defense but especially on defense. There were numerous times when we had players in good position and who were not decisively blocked but the faster Duke players just ran by us. Other times we made poor tackles because the Duke runners were able to use their speed to maneuver to prevent good tacking angles. This lack of speed can not be corrected. We can help the situation by having good defensive schemes that allows gang tackling - much easier said than done.

I do think we need to settle on a QB and keep him in the game. We should also pick 2 FBs and go with them. Rotating 4-5 FBs on almost every play prevents them from "getting in the flow of the game". Pick the FBs that do not fumble.
0 x

User avatar
RABBLE
New Recruit
Posts: 28709
Joined: December 2016
x 44
Contact:

Re: This whole passing nonsense

Post by RABBLE » Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:33 pm

Darnell Woolfolk is the best power runner FB since Blanchard. Honest. OK , so he fumbled one time. Questionable fumble at that. He is our best bet AS LONG AS our offensive line gets their act together and block and move the chains consistently like last year.

The trouble is how good can this offensive line improve from game 1 to game 2. It's our biggest problem this early in the year.
0 x


Post Reply Previous topicNext topic