AcademyWars.com

Oliphant wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 11:11 pm

kfan12 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 5:08 pm

Oliphant wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 12:53 am 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.

kfan12 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 10:48 am

prideandream wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 9:02 pm 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.

kfan12 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 10:54 am

Oliphant wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 11:11 pm

kfan12 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 5:08 pm

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.

prideandream wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 5:35 pm

kfan12 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 10:54 am

Oliphant wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 11:11 pm

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.

ARMORMAN wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:35 pm 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.