ESPN article
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:16 pm
- x 110
- x 4
- Contact:
ESPN article
ESPN By Bill Connelly
May 19, 2023
What does a modernized Army offense look like? Last spring, the NCAA rules committee moved to ban all cut blocks -- blocks below the waist, even if from the front or side -- outside of the tackle box. It also limited who was allowed to throw cut blocks at all. Player safety and knee injuries were cited as the rationale for the change, but it basically seemed to be targeted at two offenses in particular: the flexbone triple-option offenses of Army and Navy. (Air Force runs a ton of option, too, but its scheme has long been a bit different.) There was no long-running record of increased injuries suffered against the Black Knights or Midshipmen, but that didn't seem to matter.
On paper, Army's rushing numbers didn't suffer because of the change. The Knights averaged 4.8 yards per carry and ranked 53rd in rushing success rate while going 9-4 in 2021, and they improved to 5.4 and 29th last year. But that success came against one of the weakest schedules in FBS, and it appears Monken saw the writing on the wall. Just as new Navy head coach Brian Newberry hired Kennesaw State offensive coordinator Grant Chesnut to add some modern touches to its option attack, Monken dipped one level further down, bringing in Drew Thatcher from Division II Nebraska-Kearney.
Thatcher's UNK attack averaged 32.8 points per game and 6.6 yards per play last year -- excellent numbers -- while rushing nearly 45 times per game. It created a lot more big plays than Army or Navy have seen in a while. UNK quarterback TJ Davis attempted about 16 rushes and passes per game, which would be pass happy only by service academy standards, but considering Cade Ballard led Army with 46 total passes last season, it's pretty clear that change is coming.
Will the changes take? And does Army have what it needs at quarterback? The top three on last year's depth chart (including Ballard) are all gone, leaving Bryson Daily (one pass attempt, 11 rushes) as the most experienced option. Daily scored touchdowns of 64 and 54 yards among those 11 rushes, and he -- or whoever wins the job -- will have an experienced line and a pair of veteran fullbacks (Tyson Riley and Jakobi Buchanan) at his disposal. But after a No. 92 ranking in offensive SP+ last year, Monken needs Thatcher's tweaks to take root.
He also needs a rebound from a defense that fell from 18th to 44th in defensive SP+. This is a veteran unit -- 10 of 14 defenders with 250-plus snaps are back, and all of them are seniors -- but tackle Kwabena Bonsu, star linebacker Andre Carter II and safety Marquel Broughton were the only real playmakers, and they're all gone. The schedule is trickier (only five opponents are projected lower than 77th in SP+), so Army will probably need to improve just to match last year's .500 record.
May 19, 2023
What does a modernized Army offense look like? Last spring, the NCAA rules committee moved to ban all cut blocks -- blocks below the waist, even if from the front or side -- outside of the tackle box. It also limited who was allowed to throw cut blocks at all. Player safety and knee injuries were cited as the rationale for the change, but it basically seemed to be targeted at two offenses in particular: the flexbone triple-option offenses of Army and Navy. (Air Force runs a ton of option, too, but its scheme has long been a bit different.) There was no long-running record of increased injuries suffered against the Black Knights or Midshipmen, but that didn't seem to matter.
On paper, Army's rushing numbers didn't suffer because of the change. The Knights averaged 4.8 yards per carry and ranked 53rd in rushing success rate while going 9-4 in 2021, and they improved to 5.4 and 29th last year. But that success came against one of the weakest schedules in FBS, and it appears Monken saw the writing on the wall. Just as new Navy head coach Brian Newberry hired Kennesaw State offensive coordinator Grant Chesnut to add some modern touches to its option attack, Monken dipped one level further down, bringing in Drew Thatcher from Division II Nebraska-Kearney.
Thatcher's UNK attack averaged 32.8 points per game and 6.6 yards per play last year -- excellent numbers -- while rushing nearly 45 times per game. It created a lot more big plays than Army or Navy have seen in a while. UNK quarterback TJ Davis attempted about 16 rushes and passes per game, which would be pass happy only by service academy standards, but considering Cade Ballard led Army with 46 total passes last season, it's pretty clear that change is coming.
Will the changes take? And does Army have what it needs at quarterback? The top three on last year's depth chart (including Ballard) are all gone, leaving Bryson Daily (one pass attempt, 11 rushes) as the most experienced option. Daily scored touchdowns of 64 and 54 yards among those 11 rushes, and he -- or whoever wins the job -- will have an experienced line and a pair of veteran fullbacks (Tyson Riley and Jakobi Buchanan) at his disposal. But after a No. 92 ranking in offensive SP+ last year, Monken needs Thatcher's tweaks to take root.
He also needs a rebound from a defense that fell from 18th to 44th in defensive SP+. This is a veteran unit -- 10 of 14 defenders with 250-plus snaps are back, and all of them are seniors -- but tackle Kwabena Bonsu, star linebacker Andre Carter II and safety Marquel Broughton were the only real playmakers, and they're all gone. The schedule is trickier (only five opponents are projected lower than 77th in SP+), so Army will probably need to improve just to match last year's .500 record.
0 x
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 2209
- Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 9:04 pm
- x 92
- Contact:
Re: ESPN article
Pretty fair comments. He’s not the first to note that AF’s offense is different than Army’s or Navy’s, but no one gives any specifics.
Not a lot of new news, though he does cover the rationale fairly well. Also, I don’t think I would call the new O “tweaks.”
I am looking forward to seeing our new O in action so we can argue about how it is working (or not working) after seeing what it really is in a real game.
Not a lot of new news, though he does cover the rationale fairly well. Also, I don’t think I would call the new O “tweaks.”
I am looking forward to seeing our new O in action so we can argue about how it is working (or not working) after seeing what it really is in a real game.
0 x
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:56 pm
- x 2
- x 4
- Contact:
Re: ESPN article
Why does this forum allow the posting of articles from behind paywalls? I saw an Athletic article posted awhile ago too - with posters thanking the poster for the theft.
0 x
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 448
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:56 pm
- x 12
- x 46
- Contact:
Re: ESPN article
I apologize on behalf of us sinners.ArmyRedLeg wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 6:25 pm Why does this forum allow the posting of articles from behind paywalls? I saw an Athletic article posted awhile ago too - with posters thanking the poster for the theft.
0 x
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 1578
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:49 pm
- x 117
- Contact:
Re: ESPN article
How dare you!!!! Its is behind a PAYWALL!!!!!ArmyRoadFan7 wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 8:11 pmI apologize on behalf of us sinners.ArmyRedLeg wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 6:25 pm Why does this forum allow the posting of articles from behind paywalls? I saw an Athletic article posted awhile ago too - with posters thanking the poster for the theft.
(Lighten up francis)
0 x
- kfan12
- Warrior
- Posts: 826
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:33 am
- x 2
- x 70
- Contact:
Re: ESPN article
The real issue here is that it is a fairly simple case of copyright infringement. The OP is putting both himself and the website at risk and could cost both $ if ESPN were to find out and pursue action, though the juice may not be worth the squeeze for Disney. As this site gains funding through associated advertising, it becomes theft with a financial benefit to Academywars. More importantly, It is intellectual property theft (stealing) and a violation of the user's agreement with ESPN/Disney.wpgrad wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 10:36 amHow dare you!!!! Its is behind a PAYWALL!!!!!ArmyRoadFan7 wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 8:11 pmI apologize on behalf of us sinners.ArmyRedLeg wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 6:25 pm Why does this forum allow the posting of articles from behind paywalls? I saw an Athletic article posted awhile ago too - with posters thanking the poster for the theft.
(Lighten up francis)
0 x
BG
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 1578
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:49 pm
- x 117
- Contact:
Re: ESPN article
We should really file charges against everyone involved with this website. No punishment is too small. Also, report self to honor board.kfan12 wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 11:55 amThe real issue here is that it is a fairly simple case of copyright infringement. The OP is putting both himself and the website at risk and could cost both $ if ESPN were to find out and pursue action, though the juice may not be worth the squeeze for Disney. As this site gains funding through associated advertising, it becomes theft with a financial benefit to Academywars. More importantly, It is intellectual property theft (stealing) and a violation of the user's agreement with ESPN/Disney.
Disney stands to make millions by coming hard after this board and its 17 posters. We all need to suffer.
0 x
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 12:57 pm
- Contact:
Re: ESPN article
As I recall from my time at school, as long as you document where you get the content from (and don't try to pass if off as your own, you are good. You may not get full credit, but you won't get in trouble!
0 x
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:58 am
- x 8
- x 104
- Contact:
Re: ESPN article
wpgrad wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 3:46 pmWe should really file charges against everyone involved with this website. No punishment is too small. Also, report self to honor board.kfan12 wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 11:55 amThe real issue here is that it is a fairly simple case of copyright infringement. The OP is putting both himself and the website at risk and could cost both $ if ESPN were to find out and pursue action, though the juice may not be worth the squeeze for Disney. As this site gains funding through associated advertising, it becomes theft with a financial benefit to Academywars. More importantly, It is intellectual property theft (stealing) and a violation of the user's agreement with ESPN/Disney.
Disney stands to make millions by coming hard after this board and its 17 posters. We all need to suffer.
0 x
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:58 am
- x 8
- x 104
- Contact:
Re: ESPN article
Guess we are running out of things to be worked up about. I’ll go ahead and start another brent Davis thread to keep things spicy.ArmyRedLeg wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 6:25 pm Why does this forum allow the posting of articles from behind paywalls? I saw an Athletic article posted awhile ago too - with posters thanking the poster for the theft.
I’m assuming you wrote this as a joke.
0 x
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: AdsBot [Google], Google [Bot], Semrush [Bot], stash76, wp1994 and 767 guests