JM presser today

[ARMORMAN]

very revealing....

Jeff basically admitted that:

We need to distribute the ball way more to our better runners; i.e. Marshall, Reed, others..
We need to pitch more and get it outside when they stack.
We should have gone for it on 4th and 1 at midfield.
We have got to just smash it in from the red zone.

Obviously, the (uncharacteristic) 5 turnovers alone cost us the game, but he echoed what many on this forum have opined: that the new offense cannot continue in its current, predictable, ineffective inside-run form. I expect we'll see it opened up om Sat.

[ithurtstowatch]

That the offense has turned into a predictable, terrible offense is clear to anyone who watches Army play football for the past three seasons. If JM had come out and said anything other than "Wow, our offense is not going to work unless we change some things" he would have been lying or he lost his mind. I'd be willing to bet that most everyone on this forum understands that we need to do something different in order to compete with the big boys. We all recognize that the NCAA (the corrupt, criminal money-making organization) has basically neutered the classic triple option that we have grown competitive with by their cut blocking rules. So what can we do? I think the answer is to go back under center and run a triple option offense. I think we spend our time drilling our quarterbacks to read and run a true triple option more often than we just run a mid-line follow or a called fullback dive. I believe that we spend our time fighting the NCAA in the off-season for fixing their broken rules. I think we have a better chance of winning by doing this instead of trying to run the same offense that everyone else runs with not as great of athletes.

[Oliphant]

very revealing....

Jeff basically admitted that:

We need to distribute the ball way more to our better runners; i.e. Marshall, Reed, others..
We need to pitch more and get it outside when they stack.
We should have gone for it on 4th and 1 at midfield.
We have got to just smash it in from the red zone.

Obviously, the (uncharacteristic) 5 turnovers alone cost us the game, but he echoed what many on this forum have opined: that the new offense cannot continue in its current, predictable, ineffective inside-run form. I expect we'll see it opened up om Sat.

Those problems have existed for the previous two seasons.

[ArmyRoadFan7]

I think we should go back to something similar to what we ran when Ellerson was here. Recruit bigger slot backs like Maples and Baggett that you can run between the tackles 20-25 times a game. Lots of counters and traps. You can still cut block inside the tackle box. That offense was very effective, it’s undoing was all the turnovers. I believe Monken could limit the turnovers and still maintain the offense’s effectiveness.

[FSUBulldog0]

I think we need to be clear about what has changed, why that makes things difficult for us and Navy and why Air Force is different. Army and Navy come from the Paul Johnson option tree where cut blocks were always a large part of the scheme. Not just on the edge(which is illegal now), but also at the 2nd level (also illegal now) aimed at LBs and safeties. These 2nd level cut blocks are what historically sprung FBs for long runs while those on the edge slowed down pursuit and allowed small SBs to affect larger LBs, springing SBs for long runs. We can’t cut in either of those spots anymore (although I saw LSU cut a LB against FSU without a penalty being called). Therefore, we’ve had to completely change our blocking scheme. My understanding is that we’ve gone to more of a zone blocking scheme which is more popular throughout football and likely narrows the advantage we once had. Whether we run our offense from behind center or from the shotgun, the bigger issue is the new blocking scheme.

Why doesn’t this affect Air Force? They went to a zone scheme 10-15 years ago when Calhoun returned from the NFL. They do it very well. Mostly they’ve done it under center the past couple years. They’ve also done it more from the shotgun than we have traditionally. That is the biggest reason we don’t see a big change from Air Force like we do from Army and Navy.

Why didn’t it work on Saturday? A few reasons. Our reads were slow in the backfield. We looked more like we were running a slow mesh than the option. This means our OL, while trying to execute a new scheme, had to hold their blocks even longer than expected in a shotgun offense. Our OL is executing a new blocking scheme which is going to take time to gel. Put the new scheme together with a slow-moving option and it’s a recipe for disappointment.

Can it work? Probably. It’s going to come down to execution just as the under-center option does. It’s going to need quicker execution and better blocking though. It also goes without saying that it’s going to take fewer turnovers.

[rog66]

very revealing....

Jeff basically admitted that:

We need to distribute the ball way more to our better runners; i.e. Marshall, Reed, others..
We need to pitch more and get it outside when they stack.
We should have gone for it on 4th and 1 at midfield.
We have got to just smash it in from the red zone.

Obviously, the (uncharacteristic) 5 turnovers alone cost us the game, but he echoed what many on this forum have opined: that the new offense cannot continue in its current, predictable, ineffective inside-run form. I expect we'll see it opened up om Sat.

I agree with all of the above comments. Army's offense looks the exact same as last year's offense except the QB's hand offs to the running backs are 5 yards deep in the back field. Too much ground to make up in a short yardage situation. In addition, our QB is not making good reads on the offensive plays. There's no pitches to the outside and just plain no creativity on offense whatsoever. It's too way easy for the opposing defense to read Army's play calling. It looks like deja vu all over again!

[WrekDivr]

Glad to hear JM’s comments. I still have hopes for the new O, but it won’t work if Brent Davis is on his cell phone and still calling the plays.

[PrideandDream]

I think we need to be clear about what has changed, why that makes things difficult for us and Navy and why Air Force is different. Army and Navy come from the Paul Johnson option tree where cut blocks were always a large part of the scheme. Not just on the edge(which is illegal now), but also at the 2nd level (also illegal now) aimed at LBs and safeties. These 2nd level cut blocks are what historically sprung FBs for long runs while those on the edge slowed down pursuit and allowed small SBs to affect larger LBs, springing SBs for long runs. We can’t cut in either of those spots anymore (although I saw LSU cut a LB against FSU without a penalty being called). Therefore, we’ve had to completely change our blocking scheme. My understanding is that we’ve gone to more of a zone blocking scheme which is more popular throughout football and likely narrows the advantage we once had. Whether we run our offense from behind center or from the shotgun, the bigger issue is the new blocking scheme.

Why doesn’t this affect Air Force? They went to a zone scheme 10-15 years ago when Calhoun returned from the NFL. They do it very well. Mostly they’ve done it under center the past couple years. They’ve also done it more from the shotgun than we have traditionally. That is the biggest reason we don’t see a big change from Air Force like we do from Army and Navy.

Why didn’t it work on Saturday? A few reasons. Our reads were slow in the backfield. We looked more like we were running a slow mesh than the option. This means our OL, while trying to execute a new scheme, had to hold their blocks even longer than expected in a shotgun offense. Our OL is executing a new blocking scheme which is going to take time to gel. Put the new scheme together with a slow-moving option and it’s a recipe for disappointment.

Can it work? Probably. It’s going to come down to execution just as the under-center option does. It’s going to need quicker execution and better blocking though. It also goes without saying that it’s going to take fewer turnovers.

Agree with a lot of this however you can run more than one blocking scheme. FYI we ran both traditional triple and zone back in 1996. We picked up the zone play after playing Notre Dame in '95. But we also ran traditional triple and down blocked play side and cut on the back. It's not a binary choice on scheme. And we don't have to be in Shotgun the whole time. One big critique of Saturday was we should be under center in our traditional set when we get inside the 20 or 15 and just pound it in. The shotgun gives the qb time to make a read or throw a pass but it also starts the play 4 or 5 yards behind the LOS and those 4 or 5 have to be made up before positive yards are gained. You can run a zone scheme under center. However not with 255lb back.

I still say this, our issue regardless of scheme is execution and maybe talent. The freshmen center showed me what good recruiting can do. He played really well I thought given the circumstances. I believe that even with less talent that coaching is the issue of execution. I would love to know do we still demand of players more and more like Monken did when he first arrived. I don't know that answer but I know that players will only give you what you demand. I worry that maybe Monken feels defeated or just beat down. West Point has a way of doing that to you. But who knows.

PD

[wpgrad]

I'm told that the final iteration of this offense will include quite a bit of old school under center in the red zone, where cut blocks aren't needed to spur long runs (since you are in the red zone).

I'm also told the final iteration of this offense will include a few more quick passes to replace the old school pitch on the triple option

my guess is we are seeing probably 30% of the playbook we will see by 2024

[gabn92]

Wonder why the "final" iteration of this offense will include under center in the red zone, but this initial version against ULM did not? Seemingly, keeping some plays/schemes/etc. from what they were all used to in the old offense would have been an easy thing to have planned for those situations? Surprised they decided to wait and "install" those plays at a later date, when it was bread and butter for the Army O before?