Nagging concern

[gabn92]

So, one of the reasons for the change in the style of offense Army is playing is due to the lack of productivity against AF and Navy the past few years...they've gotten too familiar with our offense and able to defend it too well. Part of that was due to the fact their defenses were practicing against their own offenses all year long...so it wasn't much of a change for them to see our O on game day.

Now, not only is our O not being very productive or consistent, but our D is no longer facing traditional triple option offense in practice all year. So, how concerned should we be about our defense's ability to successfully defend AF and Navy attacks? Seems to me like this experiment with a new offense could have a ripple effect of making our D more susceptible to the AF and Navy schemes.

A lot is written about complementary football...and folks on this forum have already pointed out that this offense is failing to complement our defense because it can't sustain drives and thus our D is on the field too much. Could another problem be that our D is going to be less prepared against triple option offenses like AF and Navy when we face them?

[Lusk2003]

So, one of the reasons for the change in the style of offense Army is playing is due to the lack of productivity against AF and Navy the past few years...they've gotten too familiar with our offense and able to defend it too well. Part of that was due to the fact their defenses were practicing against their own offenses all year long...so it wasn't much of a change for them to see our O on game day.

Now, not only is our O not being very productive or consistent, but our D is no longer facing traditional triple option offense in practice all year. So, how concerned should we be about our defense's ability to successfully defend AF and Navy attacks? Seems to me like this experiment with a new offense could have a ripple effect of making our D more susceptible to the AF and Navy schemes.

A lot is written about complementary football...and folks on this forum have already pointed out that this offense is failing to complement our defense because it can't sustain drives and thus our D is on the field too much. Could another problem be that our D is going to be less prepared against triple option offenses like AF and Navy when we face them?

I could not agree more

[WrekDivr]

Fair point. In another thread, I posted that the D isn’t really holding up its end of the log, either.

Also, I believe that a huge part of our ineffectiveness on O is our turnovers. I think we’ve had 17 so far this year with another 7 fumbles that we recovered (which are also drive killers). And Udoh has two games in a row with 100+ yards, mostly up the middle. Imagine if Buchanan had 100 yards in a game last year. Gotta hang on to the ball.

[kfan12]

TOs have certainly killed us and cost the opportunity to win at least two more games.

A significant part of our turnover problem, in addition to inexperience at the QB position, is that opponents are in our backfield about as fast as the QB can drop back or hand the ball off, especially if they attack from the right. I'm not sure the right tackle and end are even aware of the play call /blocking scheme at times.

We've been able to run pretty effectively from the middle to inside the left tackle I think.

[PrideandDream]

Interesting take. I haven't put a ton of thought into this but it did cross my mind. I guess we will see when we get to Air Force. I have said all along that the AF game could be a very very defining moment for all of this. Maybe we rise up and play well. But it could be a total debacle.

[RABBLE]

Guys, the only reason we won the past 10 years is because we used the TO . That is a fact.
Opponents could never learn our system in one week of pre-game practice.
So, in our esteemed reasoning, we decide to change to the gun option formation offense which most teams now use as their system because they already knew it. With the new cut block rule we threw the baby out with the bathwater and in effect we don't have the baby anymore. Because of a rule change we scrapped the TO. We could have adapted that rule change in the TO in spring and pre-season practice.
Combined with our present recruits who were mostly schooled in the TO, we are now experiencing a god awful offense who can't even score a damn point in 2 consecutive games.

OK change your offense but do not expect good things to happen in 7 games when , especially playing the toughest schedule in years, we get recruits that not have been somewhat use to it in HS

[gabn92]

Agree the AF game will be very telling...we've played a tougher schedule, but they have looked very good. Navy D was able to hold them to 17, so hopefully Army D can do the same. If we can't then this concern about the ripple effect on our D could prove correct.

[WrekDivr]

If we turn the ball over the 2-3 times we are averaging so far, you can mail in the L to AF now.

[kfan12]

Agree the AF game will be very telling...we've played a tougher schedule, but they have looked very good. Navy D was able to hold them to 17, so hopefully Army D can do the same. If we can't then this concern about the ripple effect on our D could prove correct.

We'll see. I think what Navy sees in practice is probably closer to what AF employs on offense than Army sees in practice this year. Per ESPN, Navy is #55 in total defense, while Army is #79. Know those stats are a bit skewed by the LSU game where we accidentally stopped LSU a total of one time. Navy is #70 in rushing defense, Army is 110, and giving up 5.8 yards per rush. Offensively, both are miserable at 114 and 120.