Thoughts

[wpgrad]

Come on, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. First of all, those players were on the team last year. If they were so great, why werent they playing. Second, the only reason our lineman are bigger is BECAUSE of the new offense

[ArmyRoadFan7]

It's certainly hard to imagine that with the size of this year's o line, Daily as tough as he's been at QB, probably Hayden Reed as an every down fullback, and Marshall or Robinson in at least one slot position that we couldn't make the old offense be really effective. Add Buchannan and Riley on short yards. And Short and Alston at WR? Or many of these other guys we've seen play? What we needed was increased execution. Probably a dedicated O line coach and not Viti. What's pretty clear to me is that we have no real advantage in this system and the cut block rule doesn't seem to be bothering Air Force.

PD

You seem to have this fixation on Air Force and what they are doing. Do you think our coaching staff has the ability to teach the zone blocking concept Air Force has implemented? And if they did would you want us to try and run some dumbed down version of what they are running. I would have liked us to stay with some modified version of our previous offense also but we need to be different. It is true Monken brought with him the blue print he learned from Paul Johnson but at least he knew how to make that work.

[PrideandDream]

So I do find the long term success AF has had running the offense fascinating. Guilty as charged.

I'm not sure Air Force has gone to a zone scheme. They may run zone every now and then but a lot of what they are doing is standard down blocking play side and cutting off or sealing on the back. You can run both it's not all or none. As far back as 1996 we ran both standard triple with midline, inside, outside veer, double option, and we ran outside zone with different alignments and different blocking schemes. You always knew we were running zone because the O line splits got wider and the fullback moved another yard back to 16 feet from the nose of the ball from 13.

What I'm really fascinated with is how they run the fullback over and over and how the QB checks them into the right plays. They also are able to routinely pitch the ball and get it to the perimeter. They aren't struggling with cut blocks.

Look they run the same thing that's always been run. Why are they better at it? My guess is consistency of coaching. The OC is Mike Thiessen who played under Deberry as a QB. And the OL coach is a graduate that played for Deberry and the Slot back coach played for Deberry. So they have a multitiude of guys who played there and under a successful staff. That counts for a lot. Imagine if you had Ronnie McAda as a seasoned OC and Mike Mayweather coaching your slots and Bryce Holland coaching the O line? All guys who played on successful Army teams and for pretty good staffs. I think that is part of their secret. Not sure we can replicate that part.

I don't think we need a dumbed down version. I think that's what everyone was so frustrated about the last couple years. That was the dumbed down version. And we were running that without effective fullback qb play. We need a smartened up version and daily looks to be the kind of kid who could do that.

Effectively the flexbone is a formation. But the scheme of triple option is about running to the "Bubbles" in the defense based on the fronts. In a 4 man front you get a lot of midline and trap due to the center being uncovered. With an odd front you'll see more inside and outside veer depending on how the nose and tackle play. When they stack inside the box and you can't attack certain gaps in the front with the Fullback then the QB checks to a double option to get another blocker on the perimeter or flips the play call or adjust for the load option along with any number of other checks but the point is a smart QB is critical to getting the offense in the right spot. Thats's not different but I do think AF does a great job of this and part of that is having a guy who has done it, was really good at it, and now dedicated to doing it.

My only point about the players is we could have easily bulked up O lineman to be bigger. And we can see we have some talent. It just needs to be coached effectively. I would argue that for whatever reason coaching is failing us in both schemes. But the idea of under center triple option is alive and well and still working at Air Force but somehow at Army it has died?? I just don't buy it

PD

[kfan12]

I don't see carping about the new offense at this point. As I recall, JM had two losing seasons as he implemented his TO and another losing season in '19. I agree Viti may not be the answer to fixing O line issues, and I don't know if he will grow into the position he is in. We've seen some production loss in the run game since he was hired. Was the cause of that decrease in productivity a rule change or a coaching change? I'm not sure the rule change didn't obscure weakness in coaching linemen. We shall see. Still I think we can get back to winning seasons with this offense, if the team develops a bit more precision in its execution.

[Coach MC]

I loved the old triple option offense as much as anyone. I really did. When it was rolling, it was a site to behold. And there were some years, we ran it to perfection. But to really make it go, you need a dynamic QB who is adept at TO, quality options at FB, and a strong overpowering line that has the endurance to hold up for an entire game. And we have had that many years. However, even if you have all those things, if a defense has a stout line that can control the line of scrimmage and take away the fullback dive, speed and aggressiveness in the back 7 to take away the perimeter, and plays assignment sound football, you are in trouble. A triple option team has to have some really great personnel to be dominant, and how many years can we count on that. Teams are so strong and athletic these days and physically mature due to their extra years, that it makes it hard for a limited offense like the TO to be successful. And if we got behind the chains in that offense, it was almost certainly a lost possession. The execution has to be almost flawless, ball security and limiting penalties are paramount, play calling needs to keep defenses off balance, and the line has to complete all assignments. Big splits in the line allow slanting and stunting defensive linemen to shoot gaps and blow up plays in the backfield. But if the line is tight there are 9 defenders in the box. There is simply no margin for error. Jeff Monken has moved up the coaching ladder and made his money off the triple option, so if he decided to move away from it, you know he saw the days of that offense coming to a close. The day I knew our triple option was about to be scrapped was the Georgia State game last year. Granted, our play calling last year was beyond limited, but they took away everything we wanted to do. I wouldn't be shocked if Monken made up his mind that day too. Another small factor is that more kids will want to play in this offense, so perhaps it makes recruiting easier. Kids today have different priorities.

Air Force's success is notable. And they've been pretty consistent with it. They were the first to really "break the bone" and start flexing out slot backs and running one and two back sets. They were pretty diverse. But look what happens lately when these service academies play each other. Beyond the significance of the matchup, the actual games are really hard to watch. Boring, low scoring games with a turnover or one big play making the difference. Anyone can beat anyone regardless of record. Air Force has done well the few times they have stepped up in competition. I believe they beat Baylor last year. But we have played way more Power 5 teams tough to the end. Air Force's success this year should be taken with a grain of salt. Robert Morris, Sam Houston, Utah State, San Jose St, and San Diego State (who is down this year). Combined record: 8-22. Oh, and to underscore how important defense is: they've allowed an average of 12.2 points per game. Interesting to see what they do against two pretty good teams in Wyoming and Colorado State. If they handle them, then they're for real this year.

Which brings me to my final point. In 2 of our 3 losses, we had the lead in the 4th quarter. Forget whatever ineptitude people think our new offense brings. Forget the crucial mistakes we have made with ball security. Forget the questionable coaching decisions we have seen this season. If our defense was able to stop the run consistently, and came up with a few big stops in crunch time, we are 4-1 right now. Can't count on simply out scoring teams in shootouts to win. You need crucial stops when they matter. All that being said, I may be too optimistic, but I see the arrow pointing up for this program. I am really frustrated this season, but I think what you are seeing right now is the low point and I think the next few years are going to be very good for Army football.

[ARMORMAN]

Outstanding discussion between MC and P&D! Truly insightful and educational. These are men who expertly understand the craft. Thanks to you both, thanks for your valid and relevant points, and mostly, thanks for your common support of Army Football.
Hoorah!

[PrideandDream]

Scheme, coaching, recruiting, execution, whatever aspect of this team you want to discuss. The point is we aren't any better and that's a problem and Monken owns it. I'm still unhappy about the 2019 season where we didn't win. No excuse. And not making a bowl last year. And so far this year we may get the same results as last year. I expect to win every year. There are no year's off to fix things. Army isn't a rebuilding project.

There are examples of teams changing schemes and coaches and players every year and continuing to perform. I might note the massive changes that Alabama has seen during Saban's tenure. And before someone says well they have all this talent, which is true, regardless of Coaching Staff which is like a turnstyle in Tuscaloosa and the change from a run based team to more of a spread and RPO team they have stayed, not just good, not just winning, but they have stayed ELITE!

We lost to ULM who is not good.
We beat UTSA who isn't great and frankly had to play perfect to do so. In fact had to go for it on 4th down over and over to only win by 1 score.
We've been a team with no identity in the red zone and only showed up for a half in Syracuse and a half vs BC.

None of these are elite teams. Far from it. Little things killing us in all kinds of phases.

I guess my contention is that our offense should be effective enough to control the ball and convert in the red zone and keep the sticks moving. We get on average about 8 possessions a game. We should be scoring on 5 of those more often than not. We lost to BC because we put up 3 points in one half of football. 3 points. Against a team that frankly isn't that great.

My point about the offense remains, what exactly is it giving us as an advantage that is helping win football games??

Maybe we beat Troy this week. I hope so but they can run the ball. So if we only play a half again it's gonna be trouble.

PD

[kfan12]

Well, I would think the advantage they are trying to get to is in the new offense's ability to generate more variety of plays, and in doing so, keep the opponent's defense on their heels. In the ULM game, coaches were a bit tentative and the QB was unsteady; Syracuse was going to be a dog fight, because they are a pretty decent team this year, but I agree we've simply not shown up for whole halves in multiple games this year. To me, that's on the coaches. The BC loss is the most frustrating from my perspective. Just didn't seem to have any spirit coming out in the rain there; Ill-timed penalties; weather cleared and we shanked two punts... I think you have to be smart and aggressive to make the new offense work, and we weren't in that first half against BC. Just a lot of miscues that are debilitating whether they are due to indiscipline, loss of focus, whatever the case.

[Dong Fong '09]

this offense is clearly better than what we've put on the field the past couple of years. inconsistent for sure, but that's what i would expect with a totally new approach/system.

we've had some totally dumb plays in key moments. Otherwise this team would be 4-1. we could've won every game we've played this year.

Lots of factors go into winning, but I don't know how one could watch the past five games and believe that running tyler 25 times off tackle worked better.

P&D i don't understand how you can come out and say a power five team this year is bad, when over the years you have also claimed that teams like georgia southern are really good.

i would obviously prefer to not be 2-3. I like daily as our qb, and prefer having a big strong guy that is a battering ram running the ball. I think our season is salvageable and I wouldn't be surprised if we had a strong finish to the year.

[PrideandDream]

Just to be clear, I wasn't totally happy with the production of the old offense. It failed in execution as well. Particularly the guards and center play. Over and over. And as people had pointed out we weren't getting to the edge and pitching the ball. We also didn't effectively run the fullback 25-30 times a game. Mostly because of the interior O line play. Which then limits everything else. This is why I continually point out Air Force. They aren't just under center they pound you between the guards an force you to stop the fullback on the midline and veer. And when you adjust defensively they move outside and to other players depending on the defense. And they do so really effectively. So don't get me wrong it's not that I particularly want the old offense back with it's same production. It's I want to see us actually run the triple the way it should be run and AFA serves as a model it can be done.

To your point about inconsistency. That is the death of an offense. And without it there's no ball control and hence we aren't 4-1 we are 2-3. Statistically we are, so far , worse on 3rd down this year than last year. We are also rushing for about 4.2 a carry vs.5.4 per cary last year. And through 5 games we are exactly 8 points ahead of last year. We are by definition not any better as an offense. As a side note we've had only 1 player rush for over 100 yards so far when Reed broke 107 vs UTSA. Already had 3 do so in last years' first 5 games. This offense is clearly different but so far it's not better. Maybe it's more exciting to you to see different plays run but that doesn't impress me. I would also argue that the more plays you run with more players the harder it is to drive execution. Particularly when there are more pass plays. Execution is the key to consistency. So again until it's more consistent I see no advantage to this scheme.

As for Power 5 teams being bad well that happens every year. Vanderbilt P5 is a bad team. Virginia is a bad P5 team. Baylor, UCF, Michigan State, Illinois, Arizona State, Stanford and Indiana are also all bad P5 Teams. Non Power 5's like Tulane, Memphis, Georgia Southern, Air Force, and Troy are all pretty good. So is Western Ky. BC isn't very good. They are not an offensive juggernaut. And in terms of all P5 teams have given up 190 points. Which only a handful of teams in P5 have done to include Colorado, Virginia, LSU, and Vanderbilt. In fact BC has given up more points than every team in the SEC, The Big 10, and all ACC teams except Virginia. We scored 3 points on them with a run based offense and those 3 came due to our inability to run inside the 5 yard line. BC is a team we can beat this year but didn't.

I too like Daily at QB. Wasn't sure he was the guy but he's been tough and resilient and isn't a great thrower but better than we've had. I too hope we beat Troy. But they've won 3 in a row vs some decent teams and played JMU very tight. They will be a challenge I believe.