Never forget…

[kfan12]

Reality is, we changed offenses because Monken wants a P5 job and he knows the triple option is a dead end. All the rules changes and other talk is just cover for that.

Hopefully, it pans out. Early returns have been ugly.

Cite a reference or keep the bovine scattalogy.

It is common sense.

Monken has been pining for a P5 job. No P5 team wants to run the option. GT has solid success (BCS/NY6 bowl appearances) and they kicked Paul Johnson to the curb. If he wants a P5 gig, he has to show he can win with a different offense. The rule changes were a way to justify the decision. He went from never wanting to throw a pass to this offense.

Nice try, but when the coach has over and over again talked about the type of players the academy gets and running an offense that will work at USMA, stating that his potential to take a P5 job as the "reason" he changed Army's stagnate offense would mean he may not believe it will work but is doing so anyway because his priority is achieving that P5 potential. FWIW, not many colleges are going to hire anyone whom they think intentionally went against the best interests of their team in pursuit of personal glory. Bottom Line, there is no basis in fact that he changed the offense so he could gain more appeal elsewhere, and the only people suggesting that are one's who are unwilling to trust that he can make this work and improve Army's O beyond the short sight of a single season.

[PrideandDream]

It's well understood that Monken would like a P5 job. That isn't BS and it is well known.

That is a far cry from "he changed USMA's offense to further his personal ambitions." If you can't cite a source quoting or paraphrasing something JM has said, then it is simply intentionally negative assumption.

I have zero intentions of citing of my sources on this and many other topics. You ignoring or denying I may or may not have one is up to you.

[PrideandDream]

Cite a reference or keep the bovine scattalogy.

It is common sense.

Monken has been pining for a P5 job. No P5 team wants to run the option. GT has solid success (BCS/NY6 bowl appearances) and they kicked Paul Johnson to the curb. If he wants a P5 gig, he has to show he can win with a different offense. The rule changes were a way to justify the decision. He went from never wanting to throw a pass to this offense.

Aside from the fact you are quibbling over something you stated as fact, but have 0 evidence of.

Nice try, but when the coach has over and over again talked about the type of players the academy gets and running an offense that will work at USMA, stating that his potential to take a P5 job as the "reason" he changed Army's stagnate offense would mean he may not believe it will work but is doing so anyway because his priority is achieving that P5 potential. FWIW, not many colleges are going to hire anyone whom they think intentionally went against the best interests of their team in pursuit of personal glory. Bottom Line, there is no basis in fact that he changed to offense so he could gain more appeal elsewhere, and the only people suggesting that are one's who are unwilling to trust that he can make this work and improve Army's O beyond the short sight of a single season.

So how many seasons will it take? Just curious....and I only ask because this isn't the first team or coach to change a scheme in the offseason. There are numerous examples where schemes changed and teams kept on producing. Auburn went from the Wishbone to the I formation in '85, Bama changed from a heavy run to RPO when Tiffin came on board. And Offensive Coordinators change every year and many with continued success. So how many games do I have to watch where we don't produce offensively in multiple categories, points, yards, 3rd down conversions, etc before I can expect improvement. Last I checked we put up a whopping 7 points on Holy Cross in the 10th game of the year. But I suppose that is better than the ZERO points we put up against a horrific ULM team in Game 1 when ULM effectively had NO GAME film to even scheme up against us.

[Dude69]

I can tell you exactly how many seasons it will take to figure out that this new offensive "scheme" doesn't work.

ONE SEASON. This ONE.

[JKillerK]

The spring game was evidence enough for me.

[ARMORMAN]

P&D makes compelling arguments and the stats back him, not to mention his own fullback history. It's been a brutal "offensive" display, and "No excuse Sir" would be an appropriate response...

Having said that, I know P&D like the brother he is. We all want desperately to somehow pull out a win in these last 2 games. Fingers crossed that Thatcher/Monken have patched together enough effective plays in a game plan to get into the end zone several times against CC and the squids. Hoping also that Woody's D can slow down the Rooster juggernaut. Not so much "bending" please...

Winning out, evening the season at 6 and 6, and most importantly, bringing the CIC home would be an incredible ending to an underwhelming year. If we can do that, then I'm hoping that Jeff makes good on his SiriusXM's comment to possibly mix what we had been doing successfully in the past with some of what we're doing now. To me, that would translate into trashing a lot - but not all - of the current gun playbook and going "Back to the (under-center) Future" with a real, live O line coach and either a new OC or a born-again, "I get it" Thatcher 2.0...

Out.

[WrekDivr]

I am curious to see what changes and adjustments we make. While I really enjoy watching a good TO offense, we have not run a true TO in a while.

I am not as negative on the new Offense as many in this board seem to be. If we were running our old offense and had the same number of turnovers and (in the last couple of games) penalties I think we would have had similar results.

Meanwhile, let’s hope we can go 2-0 in our last two games and end on a more positive note.

[PrideandDream]

Monken was very humble, for lack of a better term, on the Army Radio show last night from Ike Hall. He was asked about the offense and its improvement from the ULM game. He said Bottom line it's not scoring enough points. He recognized both Syracuse and Boston College we only played a half. He had little to say about Troy and LSU and nothing really about UMASS. Said they were at a loss at that point. He goes on to say it's not easy to put in a new offense, which I agree it's not easy but not impossible by any measure. He talks about running Gun Plays before too. And ultimately he says there are a lot of growing pains and a "Many more than he thought there would be". What he didn't really say was citing any kind of objective evaluation of the effectiveness of the offense. I thought the lack or real insight into this question was interesting. He certainly sounds way less than pleased with the offensive performance. I know that's a Blinding Flash of the Obvious. Just his tone and demeanor.


This Week in Army Football 11/16/2023

We will see what happens tomorrow. Maybe we put it all together again like UTSA.

PD

[kfan12]

It is common sense.

Monken has been pining for a P5 job. No P5 team wants to run the option. GT has solid success (BCS/NY6 bowl appearances) and they kicked Paul Johnson to the curb. If he wants a P5 gig, he has to show he can win with a different offense. The rule changes were a way to justify the decision. He went from never wanting to throw a pass to this offense.

Aside from the fact you are quibbling over something you stated as fact, but have 0 evidence of.

Nice try, but when the coach has over and over again talked about the type of players the academy gets and running an offense that will work at USMA, stating that his potential to take a P5 job as the "reason" he changed Army's stagnate offense would mean he may not believe it will work but is doing so anyway because his priority is achieving that P5 potential. FWIW, not many colleges are going to hire anyone whom they think intentionally went against the best interests of their team in pursuit of personal glory. Bottom Line, there is no basis in fact that he changed to offense so he could gain more appeal elsewhere, and the only people suggesting that are one's who are unwilling to trust that he can make this work and improve Army's O beyond the short sight of a single season.

So how many seasons will it take? Just curious....and I only ask because this isn't the first team or coach to change a scheme in the offseason. There are numerous examples where schemes changed and teams kept on producing. Auburn went from the Wishbone to the I formation in '85, Bama changed from a heavy run to RPO when Tiffin came on board. And Offensive Coordinators change every year and many with continued success. So how many games do I have to watch where we don't produce offensively in multiple categories, points, yards, 3rd down conversions, etc before I can expect improvement. Last I checked we put up a whopping 7 points on Holy Cross in the 10th game of the year. But I suppose that is better than the ZERO points we put up against a horrific ULM team in Game 1 when ULM effectively had NO GAME film to even scheme up against us.

I don't think anyone is enjoying watching the offense at this point, except for one game and a couple of halves this season. My point is that maligning the coach's intentions, especially accusing him of intentionally sabotaging his current team for personal gain is beyond the pale. He just said two days ago they will have to adjust the offense in the off season, looking to add back under the center plays. I don't know how long YOU will have to wait, but my hope is that he is more focused on getting the job done as soon as possible for the sake of the team, the institution and the fans.

[kfan12]

P&D makes compelling arguments and the stats back him, not to mention his own fullback history. It's been a brutal "offensive" display, and "No excuse Sir" would be an appropriate response...

Having said that, I know P&D like the brother he is. We all want desperately to somehow pull out a win in these last 2 games. Fingers crossed that Thatcher/Monken have patched together enough effective plays in a game plan to get into the end zone several times against CC and the squids. Hoping also that Woody's D can slow down the Rooster juggernaut. Not so much "bending" please...

Winning out, evening the season at 6 and 6, and most importantly, bringing the CIC home would be an incredible ending to an underwhelming year. If we can do that, then I'm hoping that Jeff makes good on his SiriusXM's comment to possibly mix what we had been doing successfully in the past with some of what we're doing now. To me, that would translate into trashing a lot - but not all - of the current gun playbook and going "Back to the (under-center) Future" with a real, live O line coach and either a new OC or a born-again, "I get it" Thatcher 2.0...

Out.

I think I hear an echo.