AcademyWars.com

wpgrad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 9:29 am Well the terrible navy team won 4 AAC games. So maybe we win 5? Plus our fcs game. Plus AF and Navy. So next year we are 8-4?

Not even close to the “dark year”

I swear you all forget what its like to go 1-11 each year

Every argument of yours in response to any constructive criticism is to remember how bad we were in 2003.

We get it, Those were dark years but the program should strive to be better. This year ended well but it could have been much better.

wpgrad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 10:50 am Monken yesterday: at 2-6 people left us for dead

Sounds like 3/4 of this board

Because the team lost to crappy opponents and was humiliated 62-0 by LSU.

What did Monken want us to do? Sing the team's praises for losing to ULM and UMass?

prideandream wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2023 9:23 pm Offense still horrid.

Zero points in the 2nd half again.

And let’s be clear this is the worst navy team we’ve played in decades.

Significant issues and if we continue in this scheme then don’t expect the AAC to be any better.

Pd

I cannot agree more. Yes, I am thankful and happy for the W and the CIC Trophy. But this all happened in spite of the Army offense. It was the defense that forced 6 turnovers against AF. And it was the forced fumble scoop and score that forced navy to need a TD and 2-pt just to tie at the end instead of an easy FG to win. The navy game should have been won by at least 3 scores and NOT come down to a goal line stand with 3 seconds to go. There is some very serious soul-searching needed this off-season on offense.

Target!

I sign up for:

- Happy to beat the squids
- Happy to beat the zooms
- Happy to win the final 4 in 2023
- Thrilled to get the CIC back


HOWEVER,

- Not happy to see us sit on leads in the 2d half with an "unwatchable" 3 and out offense that gives new meaning to "conservative". In my mind, that is a "Hope we can hold" strategy, and "Hope" is never a good strategy. On D, HATE the 3 man rush. Also, our corners last Sat were 10 yards off the WR, and then their first steps were BACK. What?? I get the "don't let 'em get behind you", but that's ridiculous.
- Not happy with the Gun Option's lack of consistent effectiveness and inability to control the game and the clock. To me, it's always been this question: What exactly is our EDGE with the Gun? It's the same offense that you see everywhere, except at Army, we try to run it with lessor athletes. So what's our Edge?

I understand the argument that we've not been effective with the Under Center vs af and navy; however, I believe this to be more the result of stupid stale play-calling. Unwillingness to pitch/get to the perimeter/run counter-options/throw wheels, etc. It was risk-aversion gone amuck, allowing the defense to stack 7 or more in the box on every play.

Further, I now believe that the "rationale" for deserting the Under Center Triple; i.e., new cut block rules prohibit us from running that offense............has been proven not true. We ran the Under Center down CC's throat using zone blocking. And Worley called a magnificent game, running inside/outside, traps, pitches, etc. First time in years I had no idea what play was coming next. Loved that. Almost 400 yards on the ground. Controlled the game and clock. T-Rob's fumble in Qtr 4 the only thing that made it even close.

Having said all that, I think there's room for a Gun. I really like how Daily can get the snap, read the zone blocking, and either follow the fullback or run outside. He's a beast, and literally unstoppable when he makes the right read, which is 95% of the time. I also like the wildcat out of the Gun, with Odoh or Reed. I even like and recommend an occasional high percentage throw to the flat or a quick button or, now and then, down the middle to a usual wide-open WR when the D has crept up too close.

So, I'd like to see a "hybrid" approach, heavy on the Under Center Triple, but with the Gun in the holster when/if we need to change up. Finally, unless I misread him, I think JM is open to something similar. He said as much in the post-game presser. "We weren't as effective with the Gun all year as I'd hoped, and we need to re-assess things", or words to that effect.

That gives me hope.

To summarize, LOVE the CIC coming home. "Well Done", to quote the Alma Mater. But also looking forward to controlling games again, beating every team we should, playing smash-mouth ground games, and going through the AAC like crap through a goose!

Out.

Armorman, JM had a pretty similar assessment of the offense in his post-Navy press conference:

o We saw better production vs AF and N than recent
o Did not improve performance overall vs. other teams
o New O not different enough to pose a unique problem for opponents to prepare for
o We had options beyond just banging our heads on the wall (his words)

I expect things to evolve in the off season and look forward to see what it looks like.

last thing i want to add

i think we all agree that the offense was not good this season

that being said, our offense hasn't been good for several years, and I was fully on board with updating our offense this year. and we made a LOT of changes. new system. new QB. and new O coordinator.

After watching the CC game, my position has changed regarding the shift away from under center. It can absolutely work even with the rule changes as long as we run it like we did against CC instead of how Brent Davis was running it the past several years.

What is glaringly clear after this season (though was clear for three years) is that the issues the past few years was 1. Brent Davis was regressing and 2. We started Tyler at QB for three years (god love his toughness but he was not good).

When Worley called the plays against CC and Daily was the QB, that was the best our option offense has looked since 2018. Daily is a tough runner, and was able to pitch the ball with both hands. Worley mixed things up just enough to keep the defense off balance. It was beautiful.

I like the concept of meshing both under center and gun, though I'm not sure if Thatcher or Worley is better suited for doing that. Based off the small sample size, I think we'd be better having Worley run the under center offense and incorporate some wrinkles out of the gun. I think it would be incredibly dumb to move on to next year and ignore what happened against CC.

Dong Fong '09 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 9:14 am last thing i want to add

i think we all agree that the offense was not good this season

that being said, our offense hasn't been good for several years, and I was fully on board with updating our offense this year. and we made a LOT of changes. new system. new QB. and new O coordinator.

After watching the CC game, my position has changed regarding the shift away from under center. It can absolutely work even with the rule changes as long as we run it like we did against CC instead of how Brent Davis was running it the past several years.

What is glaringly clear after this season (though was clear for three years) is that the issues the past few years was 1. Brent Davis was regressing and 2. We started Tyler at QB for three years (god love his toughness but he was not good).

When Worley called the plays against CC and Daily was the QB, that was the best our option offense has looked since 2018. Daily is a tough runner, and was able to pitch the ball with both hands. Worley mixed things up just enough to keep the defense off balance. It was beautiful.

I like the concept of meshing both under center and gun, though I'm not sure if Thatcher or Worley is better suited for doing that. Based off the small sample size, I think we'd be better having Worley run the under center offense and incorporate some wrinkles out of the gun. I think it would be incredibly dumb to move on to next year and ignore what happened against CC.

Obviously the production against CC was a happy surprise, for us. We'll never know if it would have worked at all if CC had prepared for it. At the end of the game, Army had a lot of rushing yards, ate up a lot of clock and still scored just 21 points on offense. The difference in that game, just like the Navy game was a touchdown not scored by the offense. Again we're probably one called PI and two completed passes from putting 40 on Navy last Saturday.

Seems to me that having an offense that includes both under center plays and gun option plays is the best combination to prepare for next season. It forces the defense to prepare for more possibilities and allows whoever is calling the plays more options to fit any situation.

Obviously there is some satisfaction in getting to 6-6 and winning the CIC after the way the first half of the season played out but it’s crazy to be happy with 6-6 or say you would be happy every year with 6-6 as long as we beat AF and Navy.

With a 2-6 record after 8 games, the season was looking like a potential disaster. Things couldn't have looked worse following the loss to UMass in game 8. This was considered by almost all as a sure win going into this season. Next up was an Air Force team sitting at 8-0 on the season. A 3-9 record was a real possibility.
Then the team turned things around winning the final four games to end at 6-6. They soundly defeated the previously undefeated Air Force team and ended with the win over Navy to bring the CinC trophy back to West Point.
For me, this season has been disappointing in that they should have won at least two more games and could have won even more. They should be playing in a bowl game later this month. But I am very encouraged by the strong finish and always want to see that CinC trophy at West Point.