This team was better than 6-6. Yes, they won the CiC ... but they were gifted a win against AF and Navy can't beat a decent high school team. So, that's why there's so much negativity.
And to preempt the expected response - yes, I remember how bad Army football was 20 years ago and I'm happy that we are winning more than 2 games a season. But we should be winning more. And however the record of teams 20 years ago impacts this team is beyond me.
Held a top 25 team to 155 yards, were 18.5 underdogs, caused SIX turnovers……that equals gifted. Got it. You must be a real pleasure to be around
Yeah and kicked 3 FGs on a short field because you can't convert offensively. 6 Turnovers and two 4th down stops got us two TDs.
BTW people with high standards are never a pleasure to be around. Good isn't good enough. Our program is riddled with failure and mediocrity and it takes unpleasant people to root it out.
Look I'm happy we beat Navy and AF and won a CIC. But I'm totally unsatisfied with our overall performance to include the ones where we won.
High standards and realistic standards are 2 very different things
High standards are “we should beat alabama.”
Realistic standards are “if we beat navy and air force consistently, we are pretty darn good.”
I think beating Navy and AF should always be a goal, but I don’t think that equates to being a good team. We can’t make that determination in a vacuum. We beat a pretty good AF team (at that time) and a terrible Navy team. Does that mean we are pretty darn good? I don’t think so.
ArmyRoadFan7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 12:29 pm
We went 6-6 last year and did not win the CIC and I don’t remember anything close to this level of negativity after last season.
Probably because 6-6 was that team's ceiling.
This team was better than 6-6. Yes, they won the CiC ... but they were gifted a win against AF and Navy can't beat a decent high school team. So, that's why there's so much negativity.
And to preempt the expected response - yes, I remember how bad Army football was 20 years ago and I'm happy that we are winning more than 2 games a season. But we should be winning more. And however the record of teams 20 years ago impacts this team is beyond me.
Held a top 25 team to 155 yards, were 18.5 underdogs, caused SIX turnovers……that equals gifted. Got it. You must be a real pleasure to be around
Actually, I am a blast ... but I'm not a homer. I can separate my emotions from reality. The reality is that AF screwed the pooch that game. Just look at it objectively.
By the way, what was our offensive production if you take out the long run? And how many points did we score even with 6 turnovers (and something like 3 turnovers on downs)? A good team would have beat AF by 20+ points. And the fact that we went conservative and played not to lose after we got a lead speaks volumes on what the coaches thought of this team.
I'm not going to call a 1/4 full glass a full glass. But I can still have fun at parties.
This has been an interesting thread to watch develop...I think the debate has become one between the "glass is half-full" group and the "glass is half-empty" group.
I think there is agreement that there was only half a glass this year?
Clearly, there were things that we can all celebrate and recognize as good achievements on the field (winning the CinC, 4 game winning streak to close out the year, etc.), but there are certainly some major questions about the offense that must be addressed in the off-season. All is certainly not right and I think we will all be frustrated if Monken and team roll the same thing out next season and we see the same struggles with consistency and scoring from the offense.
They figured out how to stop the losing streak and win the final 4 games of the season. On that high note, I'm optimistic they will figure some things out this offseason and will put a better product offensively on the field next season.
For those who think the CIC is unique to the service academies you are correct. On the other hand all schools have and interstate or once a year regional rivalry. Bama/Auburn -Iron Bowl....Purdue/Indiana..oak & bucket...Ucla/Usc inter city rivalry...PItt/PSU regional..Univ Mich. North Carolina, etc vs same "State Schools....Harvard/Yale..And the list goes on. The fact is this season, was a clunker, but we survived. And no new rivalries start with next years schedule.
This team was better than 6-6. Yes, they won the CiC ... but they were gifted a win against AF and Navy can't beat a decent high school team. So, that's why there's so much negativity.
And to preempt the expected response - yes, I remember how bad Army football was 20 years ago and I'm happy that we are winning more than 2 games a season. But we should be winning more. And however the record of teams 20 years ago impacts this team is beyond me.
Held a top 25 team to 155 yards, were 18.5 underdogs, caused SIX turnovers……that equals gifted. Got it. You must be a real pleasure to be around
Yeah and kicked 3 FGs on a short field because you can't convert offensively. 6 Turnovers and two 4th down stops got us two TDs.
BTW people with high standards are never a pleasure to be around. Good isn't good enough. Our program is riddled with failure and mediocrity and it takes unpleasant people to root it out.
Look I'm happy we beat Navy and AF and won a CIC. But I'm totally unsatisfied with our overall performance to include the ones where we won.
A perfect glass half empty, half full argument here. I don't think anyone is arguing more L's is better.
Let's at least try to account for our own egos though. Responses after both the Navy and AF games indicated you weren't happy, mostly because the staff didn't switch back to under center as you have advocated for since before the season started. That's probably as much about ego as effect, given that we had the same record this year as last, even though this was the first year under a new offense with players that weren't recruited for it.
The real difference between the two seasons was pretty good defense and way too many turnovers on offense in the first two-thirds of the 2023 season. 2022 had horrible line play, which wasn't much better for much of 2023, though it got a bit better as the season went along. The biggest difference for me between the front and back half of the 23 season was Daily learning to not force throws that were easily intercepted and the line slowly adjusting to their blocking assignments. I agree no team should be satisfied at .500 but I have faith the coaches will continue to tinker with the offense, working their way back to the winning side of the ledger. It's OK to appreciate the success we did have while lamenting the failures. Expecting failure while hoping for success is not the best "option."
Last edited by kfan12 on Wed Dec 20, 2023 9:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
According to Newsday, in the contract that ended in 2020, Jeff Monken earned as an incentive performance bonus $50,000 for each win over Navy and Air Force and $150,000 for beating them both in the same year. Details of the current contract are not known outside of an approximate base salary, but assuming those provisions are still in place I don't think he's going to volunteer to give back the 150k because people did not like the manner in which we won lol.
Coach MC wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:28 pm
According to Newsday, in the contract that ended in 2020, Jeff Monken earned as an incentive performance bonus $50,000 for each win over Navy and Air Force and $150,000 for beating them both in the same year. Details of the current contract are not known outside of an approximate base salary, but assuming those provisions are still in place I don't think he's going to volunteer to give back the 150k because people did not like the manner in which we won lol.
No it wasn’t a gift it was all our excellent execution. We forced all 6 turnovers. Gimme a break. I am thrilled we won but damn, I can at least call it for what it was. If you think the AF game was a dominant Army performance you need to reevaluate your standards stat.
