Oboat- Aleclee- Beatnavy

[Bulletproof09]

Where are you guys ? At this point I would love to hear your take on all this. I'm trying my darnest to comprehend what the hell's going on. We played better then this with teams, that out matched us 10 to 1. Out of my 6yrs being here, we never looked this bad, even on our worse day. Now we're playing weaker teams and still can't get a freaking win.... YOU GOT TO BE KICKING ME! Where's all those posters from last season that was screaming for a new coaching staff?

This post was edited on 10/18 9:22 PM by Bulletproof09

 

[WP76]

I didn't get to see the game today but I was able to listen to it on XM radio in the car. Frankly, I don't know why we are this bad. I don't know why we [stink] in every facet of the game--offense, defense, and special teams, each of which took turns melting down today in an embarrassing loss. I also don't know why we seem so woefully overmatched and unprepared against teams that, on paper, we should beat.

I will also admit that I very much wanted Ellerson to be replaced. At this point, I wonder how much of our problem is coaching and how much is a lack of talent on the field. Ellerson certainly seems to have left the cupboard bare in terms of overall talent in the program. We have some decent RBs but at most other positions on the field, we're just not very good. Monken has to be given a chance to see if he can recruit better quality players before we can make a valid assessment if he's the right man for the job or not. We hired him so we have to give him at least three years to see if we can show improvement. Paul Johnson only won a couple of games in his first year at Navy as did Fisher DeBerry at Air Force before those two coaches turned those programs around. Given time, maybe Monken can do something similar. At this point and given the recent history of Army football, it's really hard to be optimistic.

I'd be lying if I said that I'm not just sick to my stomach. Every "light at the end of the tunnel" for the past 20 years has been an oncoming train.
This post was edited on 10/19 1:02 AM by WP76

 

[goodknight65]

Originally posted by WP76:

I didn't get to see the game today but I was able to listen to it on XM radio in the car. Frankly, I don't know why we are this bad. I don't know why we [stink] in every facet of the game--offense, defense, and special teams, each of which took turns melting down today in an embarrassing loss. I also don't know why we seem so woefully overmatched and unprepared against teams that, on paper, we should beat.

I will also admit that I very much wanted Ellerson to be replaced. At this point, I wonder how much of our problem is coaching and how much is a lack of talent on the field. Ellerson certainly seems to have left the cupboard bare in terms of overall talent in the program. We have some decent RBs but at most other positions on the field, we're just not very good. Monken has to be given a chance to see if he can recruit better quality players before we can make a valid assessment if he's the right man for the job or not. We hired him so we have to give him at least three years to see if we can show improvement. Paul Johnson only won a couple of games in his first year at Navy as did Fisher DeBerry at Air Force before those two coaches turned those programs around. Given time, maybe Monken can do something similar. At this point and given the recent history of Army football, it's really hard to be optimistic.

I'd be lying if I said that I'm not just sick to my stomach. Every "light at the end of the tunnel" for the past 20 years has been an oncoming train.
This post was edited on 10/19 1:02 AM by WP76

I'd buy that argument if Kent State had better recruiting classes than Army, but if you believe the team rankings in recruiting, that's not the case. Kent State ranked below Army in 2011 and 2013 in recruiting, and just a little ahead of us in 2012 when they won the MAC East. I don't agree with the cupboard is bare argument that some people are making. There are some positional weaknesses, but Dixon, Baggett, and Maples are as good a group of RBs as Army has seen in years, and Jenkins and Carnegie are probably the best CBs we've had in years as well. We were all raving about them before the season started, but now that Monken is losing, the cupboard is bare. This year's crop of players was the best since 2010, but they're not looking like it on the field.

Many fans have argued that Ellerson didn't recruit size on the DL, but neither has Monken so far. His largest DL last year weighed 260, and Ellerson brought in several who were bigger than that. Monken has gone for the bigger OL that fit his system, and that's one area where Ellerson and Monken had different approaches. All the smaller and more mobile OLs left the team this year. At last count it was more than 12 gone, including 3 star recruit Patrick Joseph, who apparently didn't fit in either. Monken has resorted to starting guys who were reserves at USMAPS last year.

 

[WP76]

[not going to quote/repost the original to save space]

gk65--First, as one who has followed recruiting rankings pretty closely for a few decades, I really don't put a lot of stock into them. Texas has top five recruiting classes every year but has lost something like 26 games (and counting) over the past four years. The Longhorns have tons of talent but it's been mis-utilized so Charlie Strong is in the process of re-building the team in his way. I'm not an expert at evaluating college football prospects (nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night

) but, frankly, I'm not a whole lot worse at it that a lot of the "gurus" that get paid to do it.

To me, it's much more a matter of a coach having a system and then finding/developing the guys he needs to run that system. I've never seen a coach makeover a team as bad as ours in a single year. (I agree that it does make me ill to watch the best backfield tandem Army's had in years lose game after game.) However, an option team will only be as good as the QB running the offense and the precision of the line's blocking. I like Santiago and Schurr but nobody's ever going to compare either of them to Dee Dowis.

As far as Jeff Monken's first year, I expected to see immediate improvement in the "attention to detail" category. Those things include wrapping up tackles, not making bone-headed mistakes repeatedly on special teams, and not being out-toughed, if you will, by teams like Yale and Kent. In that regard, this coaching staff has underachieved and I agree that not all of it can be blamed on a lack of talent. Again, from my non-expert vantage point I just don't know how much of our problems are the result of lack of talent and how much are coaching deficiencies. Either way, I'm severely disappointed at what I've seen from Army football this year. As I said in my original post, I'm even more depressed by the prospect that it may never get any better.
This post was edited on 10/19 12:34 PM by WP76

 

[jerseyboy63]

The talent, or lack there of, is not an issue. There is talent on this team. The coaching staff is totally under utilizing the best RB threat Army has had in years. Baggett is a 1,000 yard rusher, Maples has had 2-1,000 yard seasons and Dixon is better than both of them. Baggett getting 2 carries last game and Maples hardly even getting a snap is inexcusable.

The overall athleticism is better now than in 2010 - the football talent is not better, but the overall athleticism is much improved. You can't argue that Gann, Anderson, Mcnary, Travis and company were a great defense. McNary is a great athlete. That team relied on football skill and the love of football. The team today does not want it as much as those guys did back in 2010. Anderson was an absolute stud. Great team leader and the team responded. No one leads this team...all a bunch of followers.

And the coaching on REs staff was not the issue. That staff lead Army to 1 of 3 bowl wins in school history. Did his staff forget how to coach in a matter of 1 year? No. They got better athletes, but not better football players. Jenkins and Carnegie are better athletes than Rich King and Antuan Aaron. Pierce is a better athlete than Travis, but not a better football player. Travis was so instinctive. Was always around the ball. Moss is a much better athlete than any WR that was on the 2010 team. I could go on and on about football skill and athletes

And this new staff got all the allowances in the world. This was set up perfectly. Got more coaches, more strength coaches, hardly any time to do military training. The easiest schedule in America, and yet they can't win a game. Losing to Yale and Kent is a joke. This new style drove Powis and Shaq off the team. Losing Powis was a huge blow and the staff doesn't understand that these guys need at least 2 weeks off at home during the summer. Having no summer leave rubs people the wrong way.

Shields offense was much better than this years team. Maybe not due to play calling, but because he utilized the best players on offense. I don't care if the defense takes away one of the backs. You still have 2 others to defer to with the ball.

It's an embarrassing year, no doubt. For all you who wanted REs staff gone. Pay attention to the one bowl win and another 5 win season in his first year. He didn't forget how to coach.

 

[Bulletproof09]

Originally posted by jerseyboy63:

The talent, or lack there of, is not an issue. There is talent on this team. The coaching staff is totally under utilizing the best RB threat Army has had in years. Baggett is a 1,000 yard rusher, Maples has had 2-1,000 yard seasons and Dixon is better than both of them. Baggett getting 2 carries last game and Maples hardly even getting a snap is inexcusable.

The overall athleticism is better now than in 2010 - the football talent is not better, but the overall athleticism is much improved. You can't argue that Gann, Anderson, Mcnary, Travis and company were a great defense. McNary is a great athlete. That team relied on football skill and the love of football. The team today does not want it as much as those guys did back in 2010. Anderson was an absolute stud. Great team leader and the team responded. No one leads this team...all a bunch of followers.

And the coaching on REs staff was not the issue. That staff lead Army to 1 of 3 bowl wins in school history. Did his staff forget how to coach in a matter of 1 year? No. They got better athletes, but not better football players. Jenkins and Carnegie are better athletes than Rich King and Antuan Aaron. Pierce is a better athlete than Travis, but not a better football player. Travis was so instinctive. Was always around the ball. Moss is a much better athlete than any WR that was on the 2010 team. I could go on and on about football skill and athletes

And this new staff got all the allowances in the world. This was set up perfectly. Got more coaches, more strength coaches, hardly any time to do military training. The easiest schedule in America, and yet they can't win a game. Losing to Yale and Kent is a joke. This new style drove Powis and Shaq off the team. Losing Powis was a huge blow and the staff doesn't understand that these guys need at least 2 weeks off at home during the summer. Having no summer leave rubs people the wrong way.

Shields offense was much better than this years team. Maybe not due to play calling, but because he utilized the best players on offense. I don't care if the defense takes away one of the backs. You still have 2 others to defer to with the ball.

It's an embarrassing year, no doubt. For all you who wanted REs staff gone. Pay attention to the one bowl win and another 5 win season in his first year. He didn't forget how to coach.

I couldn't have said that any better! The year RE came, we could see where he was going, the following year the Bowl game! I'm trying my darnest to understand what the heck is going on from a football perspective and wondering how losing against weaker teams because we're rebuilding is acceptable -- by not using the productive talent we do have. If this a sign of what the future holds, we are in deep s@$!


This post was edited on 10/19 3:49 PM by Bulletproof09

 

[aleclee]

I've been out of pocket for the last 10 days or so.

One thing I read that really resonated with what I've seen is that Shields' offense was based much more in misdirection than what we run today. I don't know if that complexity was a contributing factor to our turnover woes but it does seem to me that what I'm seeing is more reminiscent philosophically of what we ran under Bobby Ross than Ellerson. Seems like Monken wants to simplify and out-execute on offense. I think the other major issue on offense is our youth on OL. This might pay dividends in 2-3 years but growing pains are painful.

As for our defensive woes, I don't really have an answer. To be honest, my attention has been elsewhere so I haven't been watching the games as closely as in recent years.

One thing that I haven't seen discussed here (and was probably a consideration in Ellerson's dismissal) is the TV contract. We're in the final year of the contract and based on the team's performance over the course of the CBS contract (remember ESPN dumped us a year ahead of schedule) I wonder what kind of negotiating position we have. Given that the TV money seems to be a major source of funding for the Army athletic program, I find myself wondering what the plan is to deal with the likelihood that the new TV contract (assuming we can even get one) won't be as lucrative as the current one. I plan to ask the Supe a question along those lines in a couple weeks when I'm out for my 25th reunion.

 

[jerseyboy63]

The scheme with Shields and Ellerson had a specific area they keyed on - from day 1, Ellerson said he did not want big guys, but guys who can get in space. Last year, to my recollection, Baggett had a 90 yard run and Dixon had a 70 and 80 yard td run. We do not see that this year. I could care less about the OL putting on size. If they can't move well and are not as strong as opposing teams, size doesn't matter. There have been no where near the length of runs that this team had last year. All this talk about "size" which is totally overblown, and the OL and RBs have taken a step back. Get an identity.
This post was edited on 10/19 7:39 PM by jerseyboy63

 

[Bulletproof09]

Originally posted by aleclee:
I've been out of pocket for the last 10 days or so.

One thing I read that really resonated with what I've seen is that Shields' offense was based much more in misdirection than what we run today. I don't know if that complexity was a contributing factor to our turnover woes but it does seem to me that what I'm seeing is more reminiscent philosophically of what we ran under Bobby Ross than Ellerson. Seems like Monken wants to simplify and out-execute on offense. I think the other major issue on offense is our youth on OL. This might pay dividends in 2-3 years but growing pains are painful.

As for our defensive woes, I don't really have an answer. To be honest, my attention has been elsewhere so I haven't been watching the games as closely as in recent years.

One thing that I haven't seen discussed here (and was probably a consideration in Ellerson's dismissal) is the TV contract. We're in the final year of the contract and based on the team's performance over the course of the CBS contract (remember ESPN dumped us a year ahead of schedule) I wonder what kind of negotiating position we have. Given that the TV money seems to be a major source of funding for the Army athletic program, I find myself wondering what the plan is to deal with the likelihood that the new TV contract (assuming we can even get one) won't be as lucrative as the current one. I plan to ask the Supe a question along those lines in a couple weeks when I'm out for my 25th reunion.

Giving the facts of what you said, this year should have been better planed, then what we're seeing display as far as production on the field. Unless things change drastically in performance of the players and the coaches making better use of the player's, we can kiss that TV revenue goodbye. As for out executing, that remains to be seen, I haven't seen nothing they doing work in our favor. Our D, well no need to speak on that with Bacon MIA.... We seem to be drowning, when the seniors leave we really done. Kime left before the season got started (red flags) I can't even say this one is on the school. They made changes and even the players put forth a great effort over the summer. Something needs to happen fast!

 

[ashokan]

"I'd buy that argument if Kent State had better recruiting classes than Army, but if you believe the team rankings in recruiting, that's not the case. Kent State ranked below Army in 2011 and 2013 in recruiting, and just a little ahead of us in 2012 when they won the MAC East. I don't agree with the cupboard is bare argument that some people are making. There are some positional weaknesses, but Dixon, Baggett, and Maples are as good a group of RBs as Army has seen in years, and Jenkins and Carnegie are probably the best CBs we've had in years as well. "



Comparing positions of a couple of bottom of the barrell recuting teams doesn't mean too much. In 2013 Army was 112th out of 120 teams. Kent St was 105th. Both teams had zero 4 and 5 star players. Kent St had 2 three star players and Army had one - one. Rutgers at #45 had 16 three star players.


Army has some good backs but a handful of good players won't make a football team. Army has no depth, and when a Bacon or Ugenyi go down the defense goes down the drain. Army runs out of gas in the second half (Navy often does too). One of the hardest things to do in football is for DL to keep rushing a passer. That why teams revolve guys in and out. I know if Army is barely keeping up in first half the second half will probably be bad news.


As a whole Army just doesn't do basic things well. You see that in Coach Munkens comments after the game:


"We just couldn't put anything together and score in the second half. You've got to be able to run the ball and block people. We had too many negative plays when we couldn't afford them today."

" When you can't convert plays to keep drives going and you don't tackle, it's hard to win."

"When you don't block and sustain blocks and you don't get off blocks on defense and you don't tackle and you don't cover guys on pass plays, it's hard to win,"

So the coach is telling you the team can't block, tackle or cover. Add that to hardly being able to pass or catch (and kick) and you see a team that can't do basic things well. These are things you see with teams in bottom for recruiting. If teams can't block, tackle, cover, pass, kick with some reliability across the board having a few good backs won't save you. This isn't basketball.

Rivals Recuiting Team Ranks 2013

 

[Bulletproof09]

Originally posted by ashokan:

"I'd buy that argument if Kent State had better recruiting classes than Army, but if you believe the team rankings in recruiting, that's not the case. Kent State ranked below Army in 2011 and 2013 in recruiting, and just a little ahead of us in 2012 when they won the MAC East. I don't agree with the cupboard is bare argument that some people are making. There are some positional weaknesses, but Dixon, Baggett, and Maples are as good a group of RBs as Army has seen in years, and Jenkins and Carnegie are probably the best CBs we've had in years as well. "



Comparing positions of a couple of bottom of the barrell recuting teams doesn't mean too much. In 2013 Army was 112th out of 120 teams. Kent St was 105th. Both teams had zero 4 and 5 star players. Kent St had 2 three star players and Army had one - one. Rutgers at #45 had 16 three star players.


Army has some good backs but a handful of good players won't make a football team. Army has no depth, and when a Bacon or Ugenyi go down the defense goes down the drain. Army runs out of gas in the second half (Navy often does too). One of the hardest things to do in football is for DL to keep rushing a passer. That why teams revolve guys in and out. I know if Army is barely keeping up in first half the second half will probably be bad news.


As a whole Army just doesn't do basic things well. You see that in Coach Munkens comments after the game:


"We just couldn't put anything together and score in the second half. You've got to be able to run the ball and block people. We had too many negative plays when we couldn't afford them today."

" When you can't convert plays to keep drives going and you don't tackle, it's hard to win."

"When you don't block and sustain blocks and you don't get off blocks on defense and you don't tackle and you don't cover guys on pass plays, it's hard to win,"

So the coach is telling you the team can't block, tackle or cover. Add that to hardly being able to pass or catch (and kick) and you see a team that can't do basic things well. These are things you see with teams in bottom for recruiting. If teams can't block, tackle, cover, pass, kick with some reliability across the board having a few good backs won't save you. This isn't basketball.

Yes! That sucks! But seems to me that's always been the issue here. Hmmmmmm like I said if the type of players don't change, it doesn't matter what coach comes here! What I said when people was screaming about RE. RE and staff managed to work hard around the same problems we having now, with better production on the field. Monken, well I'll wait! Even with Monken said about missed assignments, which we all knew from the season before. What was the reason for the players giving up their summer for? What is the mental block here I'm not getting, we talking about football players aren't we? So are they just learning how to play when they get here? They do well at the prep, but get here an flop! I'm not getting it!
This post was edited on 10/20 7:25 AM by Bulletproof09

 

[centuryman]

I am not letting Monken off the hook, because I think that even with our VERY low level of talent, we should be able to beat an Ivy league team 100 times out of 100.

But, let me clearly state that I don't think any of us fans truly grasp (a) just how horrific ellerson was as a recruiter (b) just how horrific ellerson's staff was at player development and (c) just how horrendously stupid his "lean and mean and 243 pound centers and 251 pounds Defensive tackle" philosophy truly was.

Folks, there are HIGH SCHOOLS in the US that average 300 pounds across their offensive line. Many of us older folks remember how the redskins in the 1980's were called the "hogs". Well, in today's day and age, they'd be small by Division 1-AA or division 2 standards.

This glamourous idea that Army fans had in the 1980's, and even up to the last 1996 team, in which fans believed our 214 pound defensive ends could play divsion 1 football is dead. Completely DEAD. We need speed on the outside, and we need 300+ on the line.

This program needs an overhaul from point A to point Z. It starts with Monken, a supe, a comm. Thats in place. And then Monken is going to have to recruit actual, legitimate, Division 1 football players to Army and then coach them up, while ensuring they don't lose 45 pounds during beast like my plebe offensive line roommate did (and never played a down for Army). But we currently have a roster full of players whose offers were from Army.......and then Chadron State and Swathmore College.

But we got a long, long way to go to make this happen. We can't currently beat a friggin Ivy league team or a kent state team, and anyone watching either one of those games would have traded our talent for their talent in about 4 seconds.

This post was edited on 10/20 9:33 AM by centuryman

 

[jerseyboy63]

I think the point that many people seem to be missing is that the scheme did work and would still work with the right players. Did Army not win a bowl game playing with undersized and under skilled players? Yes. Because the Defense was a top 15 defense (with a D line that averaged 253lbs between Gann, Ugenyi, Mcnary and Hilton). The OL was undersized too....but again, that team had HEART and wanted to win. You can't underestimate the advantage of having players who are great leaders and want to win. Does it appear that Gann, McNary and Anderson wanted to win more than the current class...of course it does. Did REs scheme change in the 5 years? Absolutely not. The players changed and the HEART changed. 2010 season was against teams much bigger but it did not matter.

Do you think JMs staff or REs staff tells Carnegie to never look for the ball when the ball is in the air? I surely hope not, but Carnegie never looks for the ball. Many times he has great coverage, but the pass is completed because he doesn't turn around. For example, against Rice, he was blanketing the WR and a pass was completed for a TD because he did not turn his head. That is not athleticism...that is a lack of football knowledge. No one complained about lack of size after a bowl win because it worked.


The NY Giants 2011 Super Bowl team had a DL like this: Tuck 268lbs, Umenyiora 255, Pierre Paul 278. Not huge. Army in 2010 - Gann listed at 275, Ugenyi at 262, McNary at 230 (not a down lineman though) and Hilton was 247. There is not a huge discrepancy and NY went against a lot bigger and stronger guys in the NFL.

If the scheme is good and the players follow it, it does not matter. The complaints only come out when the team is doing poorly...if you all have the same philosophy year in and year out, then complain during the wins as well. Next time Army wins, I hope you are on the board complaining that the players are bad and that the scheme sucks because that is the only way any argument is credible. The philosophy and scheme will stay the same during the wins and losses

 

[BlackKnightProud]

Originally posted by jerseyboy63:

I think the point that many people seem to be missing is that the scheme did work and would still work with the right players. Did Army not win a bowl game playing with undersized and under skilled players? Yes. Because the Defense was a top 15 defense (with a D line that averaged 253lbs between Gann, Ugenyi, Mcnary and Hilton). The OL was undersized too....but again, that team had HEART and wanted to win. You can't underestimate the advantage of having players who are great leaders and want to win. Does it appear that Gann, McNary and Anderson wanted to win more than the current class...of course it does. Did REs scheme change in the 5 years? Absolutely not. The players changed and the HEART changed. 2010 season was against teams much bigger but it did not matter.

Do you think JMs staff or REs staff tells Carnegie to never look for the ball when the ball is in the air? I surely hope not, but Carnegie never looks for the ball. Many times he has great coverage, but the pass is completed because he doesn't turn around. For example, against Rice, he was blanketing the WR and a pass was completed for a TD because he did not turn his head. That is not athleticism...that is a lack of football knowledge. No one complained about lack of size after a bowl win because it worked.


The NY Giants 2011 Super Bowl team had a DL like this: Tuck 268lbs, Umenyiora 255, Pierre Paul 278. Not huge. Army in 2010 - Gann listed at 275, Ugenyi at 262, McNary at 230 (not a down lineman though) and Hilton was 247. There is not a huge discrepancy and NY went against a lot bigger and stronger guys in the NFL.

If the scheme is good and the players follow it, it does not matter. The complaints only come out when the team is doing poorly...if you all have the same philosophy year in and year out, then complain during the wins as well. Next time Army wins, I hope you are on the board complaining that the players are bad and that the scheme sucks because that is the only way any argument is credible. The philosophy and scheme will stay the same during the wins and losses

I think it is often a combination of having the right players and coaching staff. My gut tells me that the players you just mentioned had more to do with being a bowl winning team than the coaching staff.

 

[jerseyboy63]

There is no doubt the players were a huge part, but those same guys also did not get more than 3 wins under Brock. I'm just saying if you have the right guys, any system is doable.

 

[WP76]

Ellerson's "poster child" squad that won a bowl game in 2010 still lost six games that year and was 0-2 in CINC games. The players were not ones Ellerson had recruited and the bowl win was by two points against SMU--the NCAA death penalty team. If that's the pinnacle of our expectations, we should just shut down the program. Ellerson won a total of ONE out of ten games against Navy and Air Force with an average margin of defeat in the three to four touchdown range.

The question wasn't whether or not Ellerson had to go because a coach simply can't expect to keep his job with those types of numbers. The question is how much time we now give Monken. I had hoped to see better results in the first year but, obviously, that's not going to happen. In all fairness, we have to give him at least three years to see if he can inject life into our undeniably moribund program.

The simple fact of the matter is it's pretty difficult to have any reason for optimism as an Army football fan right now.

 

[ccsblackknights]

Originally posted by jerseyboy63:

There is no doubt the players were a huge part, but those same guys also did not get more than 3 wins under Brock. I'm just saying if you have the right guys, any system is doable.

Please don't mention Brock as a reference point to any of our previous head coaches or Monken. He was a outstanding position coach (O-line), but was a deer caught in the headlights as the HC.

 

[jerseyboy63]

The problem is that someone, no matter what, is going to point fingers for any sort of pitiful season. At Army, I will take a 7 win season with a bowl win any year. Beating SMU is still a bowl win. Players can be blamed. Coaches can be blamed. It comes down to execution, no matter who is on the field. Army had Navy beat at least 2 of the last 3 years, but lost because of crucial fumbles. One on the 10 going in to score with under 2 minutes left and the other on the goal line, going in to score right before half. Those are not coaching problems. The game plan was in place and was not executed. Much like the Air Force game 3 years ago in Colorado. Had ~a 21 point lead at half, which included a fumble on the 1 going in to score. These are personnel issues and lack of execution issues, not coaching issues. Players need to step up and perform.

Much like Grouchowski missing key FGs against Yale and Walker having a key fumble vs WF. There are only so much coaches can do. Players have to be accountable at some point.

 

[goodknight65]

Originally posted by centuryman:


But, let me clearly state that I don't think any of us fans truly grasp (a) just how horrific ellerson was as a recruiter (b) just how horrific ellerson's staff was at player development and (c) just how horrendously stupid his "lean and mean and 243 pound centers and 251 pounds Defensive tackle" philosophy truly was.


This post was edited on 10/20 9:33 AM by centuryman

Only half true. Ellerson definitely preferred the smaller, more mobile offensive linemen, and managed to recruit some of the better offensive linemen in the country who fit that description because they were not in great demand by other programs. Clearly Monken takes a more traditional approach on size on the OL as reflected by the uptick in size of his OL recruits. Monken also lost the only 3 star OL we had at USMAPS, and I can only speculate that the system change contributed to Joseph's decision not to play. No doubt the change in philosophy has had a major effect on the effectiveness of this year's OL, and I would hope that Monken is able to recruit guys better fit for his offensive system going forward.

Neither AFA nor Navy has an OL starter who weighs more than 290 this year; so we are actually bigger than both of those offensive lines already, but clearly not better.

I have been looking for a corresponding increase in size in recruiting for the DL and have not seen it. The biggest DL that Monken was able to recruit last year was 260 pounds, and Ellerson recruited several that were larger than that including Glover, Altimalala, and Ugenyi on the current DL, but also several who never made it through the system. If you look at Monken's recruits this year, he has two DTs, one 265 and one 245, along with two DEs 220 and 245, which is no different than the guys Ellerson was recruiting. Monken lost the biggest DL that committed in 2014 in the 269 pound Czar, who Ellerson had recruited.

A couple of fans have noted that recruiting big mobile DLs is the toughest job for a football coach, and just wishing it to be different won't make it happen. Our current DL is about the same size as Navy's and the same average as AFA's, and Drummond is the only one of the current DLs who is significantly bigger than he was last year, and he's replacing Kough who was actually heavier.

 

[centuryman]

comparing an army player who is 265 to an NFL giants star is just a dumb comparison. We are never, ever ever, going to consistently get athleticism of that caliber.

My point is that in NCAA football, if you have the choice between 265 and marginal athletic, or 300 and marginal athletic, you take the 300 pounds every single time. do you think it is a coincidence that are players can barely get any type of pass rush at all? Could it be that they are 258 trying to get buy some loaf of bread and cheese weighing 319?

 

[Bulletproof09]

Originally posted by WP76:
Ellerson's "poster child" squad that won a bowl game in 2010 still lost six games that year and was 0-2 in CINC games. The players were not ones Ellerson had recruited and the bowl win was by two points against SMU--the NCAA death penalty team. If that's the pinnacle of our expectations, we should just shut down the program. Ellerson won a total of ONE out of ten games against Navy and Air Force with an average margin of defeat in the three to four touchdown range.

The question wasn't whether or not Ellerson had to go because a coach simply can't expect to keep his job with those types of numbers. The question is how much time we now give Monken. I had hoped to see better results in the first year but, obviously, that's not going to happen. In all fairness, we have to give him at least three years to see if he can inject life into our undeniably moribund program.

The simple fact of the matter is it's pretty difficult to have any reason for optimism as an Army football fan right now.

It don't matter if the player's came from another Coach, RE and staff did it (BOWL) did the coach before him do it? What am I missing here? RE used what he had to it happen. I'm just trying see what it's hitting for, at lease a jump start, THANK YOU VERY MUCH

 

[WP76]

Originally posted by Bulletproof09:

Originally posted by WP76:
Ellerson's "poster child" squad that won a bowl game in 2010 still lost six games that year and was 0-2 in CINC games. The players were not ones Ellerson had recruited and the bowl win was by two points against SMU--the NCAA death penalty team. If that's the pinnacle of our expectations, we should just shut down the program. Ellerson won a total of ONE out of ten games against Navy and Air Force with an average margin of defeat in the three to four touchdown range.

The question wasn't whether or not Ellerson had to go because a coach simply can't expect to keep his job with those types of numbers. The question is how much time we now give Monken. I had hoped to see better results in the first year but, obviously, that's not going to happen. In all fairness, we have to give him at least three years to see if he can inject life into our undeniably moribund program.

The simple fact of the matter is it's pretty difficult to have any reason for optimism as an Army football fan right now.

It don't matter if the player's came from another Coach, RE and staff did it (BOWL) did the coach before him do it? What am I missing here? RE used what he had to it happen. I'm just trying see what it's hitting for, at lease a jump start, THANK YOU VERY MUCH

The points are these:

- I have higher expectations than one bowl win in a coach's five year tenure and one win in ten tries (with multiple blowout losses) against Air Force and Navy.

- I expect Army to win more games than it loses. Ellerson didn't come close (except for the one "outlier" year) and Monken's not doing much to accomplish that goal either.

- Good coaches improve their teams, individually and collectively, over the course of a season and from one season to the next. Ellerson's teams were on distinct downward trends in both categories over his final four years as the Army coach. Contrast that to what Johnson did at Navy; DeBerry did at Air Force; or what Bill Snyder's done over his tenure at (the one time losingest program in the country) Kansas State.

 

[Bulletproof09]

Originally posted by WP76:

Originally posted by Bulletproof09:

Originally posted by WP76:
Ellerson's "poster child" squad that won a bowl game in 2010 still lost six games that year and was 0-2 in CINC games. The players were not ones Ellerson had recruited and the bowl win was by two points against SMU--the NCAA death penalty team. If that's the pinnacle of our expectations, we should just shut down the program. Ellerson won a total of ONE out of ten games against Navy and Air Force with an average margin of defeat in the three to four touchdown range.

The question wasn't whether or not Ellerson had to go because a coach simply can't expect to keep his job with those types of numbers. The question is how much time we now give Monken. I had hoped to see better results in the first year but, obviously, that's not going to happen. In all fairness, we have to give him at least three years to see if he can inject life into our undeniably moribund program.

The simple fact of the matter is it's pretty difficult to have any reason for optimism as an Army football fan right now.

It don't matter if the player's came from another Coach, RE and staff did it (BOWL) did the coach before him do it? What am I missing here? RE used what he had to it happen. I'm just trying see what it's hitting for, at lease a jump start, THANK YOU VERY MUCH

The points are these:

- I have higher expectations than one bowl win in a coach's five year tenure and one win in ten tries (with multiple blowout losses) against Air Force and Navy.

- I expect Army to win more games than it loses. Ellerson didn't come close (except for the one "outlier" year) and Monken's not doing much to accomplish that goal either.

- Good coaches improve their teams, individually and collectively, over the course of a season and from one season to the next. Ellerson's teams were on distinct downward trends in both categories over his final four years as the Army coach. Contrast that to what Johnson did at Navy; DeBerry did at Air Force; or what Bill Snyder's done over his tenure at (the one time losingest program in the country) Kansas State.

And if RE/ staff and (team) got what's happening now, *Lawdy* to Mercy..... We wouldn't be having this conversation right now and you know it.....

 

[ashokan]

"It don't matter if the player's came from another Coach, RE and staff did it (BOWL) did the coach before him do it? What am I missing here? RE used what he had to it happen. "


With some players Army just got lucky at right time. McNary was a walk-on at USMAPS that no coach recruited. Hassin had a great year in 2010 and then just dissolved for whatever reason. Less glamorous players like Erzinger played with some attitude (it cost him a few penalties too lol). Army had playmakers on defense then. The 2010 turnover margin was among best in nation. INTs, fumbles, TFLs, sacks - Army did it all. Now you watch the defense and you want to call 911 by 4th quarter.

One thing I like is that Coach Monken knows he doesn't have the horses he needs to pull the wagon. Ellerson was always "shocked" when he saw the team wasn't as good in games as it was in practice. Army can look great vs itself in practice. I saw amazing plays in spring game but then I realized how long those great plays took to execute
.

If you Read Monken close you can see he's telling you he doesn't have the players. Read this:


" I think the guys are playing hard," Monken said. "I don't think they quit … It was 23-17 for a while there and we needed to put together a drive and go score and we didn't. Too many negative yardage plays. Not being able to knock people off the ball. If you are going to run the football, you got to be able block people and be able to find a seam and run the ball."

See - the key is that he's not saying the guys weren't playing hard. He's saying they were playing hard and STILL couldn't execute. If he had said the team wasn't trying hard then you know there's more juice to be squeezed in the fruits. Monken knows he's not getting more juice.

Read again:

"We snap the ball and hit the shield with the punt snap. It's hard to win. You got a guy running on a pass route and you have to be able to complete the pass. I don't know what to say. You got to make plays."

He's basically saying "WTF - we can't even snap the ball right - can't complete a pass when we need one" . He's at loss for words because he can't say what he's thinking - that he has players who despite coaching and practice can't execute in games.

Luckily Monken is known as a good recuiter and he knows schools/players down south
This post was edited on 10/20 7:21 PM by ashokan

Kevin Gleason: Give Monken chance to recruit at Ar

 

[goodknight65]

Originally posted by centuryman:
comparing an army player who is 265 to an NFL giants star is just a dumb comparison. We are never, ever ever, going to consistently get athleticism of that caliber.

My point is that in NCAA football, if you have the choice between 265 and marginal athletic, or 300 and marginal athletic, you take the 300 pounds every single time. do you think it is a coincidence that are players can barely get any type of pass rush at all? Could it be that they are 258 trying to get buy some loaf of bread and cheese weighing 319?

Who's comparing our recruits with NFL? My comparison was Ellerson's DL recruits with Monken's and to date there's been no increase in size of recruits on that side of the ball. If anything, Monken's DL recruits so far have been a little smaller. Monken has stated that he won't sacrifice speed for size and so far he's held true to his word. Glover is actually 6 pounds lighter than he was when he played NG for Ellerson as a plebe at 270 pounds.

Check the data on the 2014 recruiting class if you don't believe me. There are 11 defensive linemen on the list, 9 of whom are DEs weighing between 190 and 250, one a DT weighing 238. The other is a listed just as a DL at 260. The 300 pounders are all OLs. If Monken just wanted size, he could convert an OL to a DL, but he hasn't so far, and on R-Day it appeared he was going in the opposite direction with a couple of our bigger DLs, McLean and Nordhausen.

Here's a list of the bigger DTs that Ellerson recruited between 2009 and 2012. They are all as big or bigger than any DL that Monken recruited last year putting lie to the myth that Ellerson only recruited 250 pound DTs.


2009
Loren Baker 265
Shelby Jackson 275
2010
Richard Glover 265
Joel Cox 275
2011
TJ Altimalala 265
Tyrone Brown 290
2012
Todd Blatnik 285
Evan Finnane 260
Jack Hanley 265

As for getting by the bigger OLs, that's the challenge for most defensive linemen. particularly the DEs. Just looking at the DE's Wake Forest DEs were 240 and 245, Buffalo had one big DT at 295 but the DE was 250, Stanford had the largest DEs at 278 and 287, AFAs both are 260, Navy's are 246 and 251, Ball State's are 253 and 278, Kent State's were 230 and 240; Yale's are 240 and 251; Rice's were 230 and 240.

 

[WP76]

And if RE/ staff and (team) got what's happening now, *Lawdy* to Mercy..... We wouldn't be having this conversation right now and you know it.....

Sorry but I have no clue what you're saying. Are you saying Ellerson only succeeded in his first year and with another coach's players due to a "perfect storm" (true to an extent) or are you saying that you think Ellerson didn't deserve to be fired (a premise with which I completely disagree for the reasons stated above) or something else?

Thanks.

 

[swburke]

My thought here is that we are the team that we have seen in the past few years, not the team that we hoped we would see or that Monken could come in and work a miracle. The O Line is evolving (nice for still trying to find the right combos - or if we have them), tackling, expecially in space is horible, pass coverage is bad - even will some better corners and we do not have a QB that will get his offense to the right level.

None of these are surprises to people on this board. I think steps are being taken at the Academy to help Monken change that and the article of recruiting was right on - Monken will win or lose in living rooms as much or more than on the field.

The frustrating part for me is the 6 coaches in 14 years, bad football and boring football. At the Rice game, I had my Chairman of my company and he noted how quiet it was. No excitement from the stands - and not much to get excited about. Not only are the players used to losing - so are the fans. Someone else noted that the TV contract will be interesting when it renews. I agree somewhat and the regular season deal is minor - Army/Navy drives this train. And with such a long losing streak, we are in the danger zone here. Army/Navy football drives the athletic department more than anything else - revenue / TV / visibility.

Lastly to me it is disappointing that we cannot take advantage of one of the weakest / if not the weakest FBS schedule in all of football. USA Today has a ranking each week of the 128 FBS programs. This week:

Navy 65
Air Force 59
Standford - down to 34
Then it gets bad
Rice 82
Wake Forest 111
Kent State 122
U Conn 118
W Ky 103
Ball St 106
Buffalo 114

Then add Fordham and Yale

Hard to see any other FBS with a weaker schedule - Army is slotted at 115.

 

[swburke]

My thought here is that we are the team that we have seen in the past few years, not the team that we hoped we would see or that Monken could come in and work a miracle. The O Line is evolving (nice for still trying to find the right combos - or if we have them), tackling, expecially in space is horible, pass coverage is bad - even will some better corners and we do not have a QB that will get his offense to the right level.

None of these are surprises to people on this board. I think steps are being taken at the Academy to help Monken change that and the article of recruiting was right on - Monken will win or lose in living rooms as much or more than on the field.

The frustrating part for me is the 6 coaches in 14 years, bad football and boring football. At the Rice game, I had my Chairman of my company and he noted how quiet it was. No excitement from the stands - and not much to get excited about. Not only are the players used to losing - so are the fans. Someone else noted that the TV contract will be interesting when it renews. I agree somewhat and the regular season deal is minor - Army/Navy drives this train. And with such a long losing streak, we are in the danger zone here. Army/Navy football drives the athletic department more than anything else - revenue / TV / visibility.

Lastly to me it is disappointing that we cannot take advantage of one of the weakest / if not the weakest FBS schedule in all of football. USA Today has a ranking each week of the 128 FBS programs. This week:

Navy 65
Air Force 59
Standford - down to 34
Then it gets bad
Rice 82
Wake Forest 111
Kent State 122
U Conn 118
W Ky 103
Ball St 106
Buffalo 114

Then add Fordham and Yale

Hard to see any other FBS with a weaker schedule - Army is slotted at 115.

 

[Bulletproof09]

Originally posted by WP76:

And if RE/ staff and (team) got what's happening now, *Lawdy* to Mercy..... We wouldn't be having this conversation right now and you know it.....

Sorry but I have no clue what you're saying. Are you saying Ellerson only succeeded in his first year and with another coach's players due to a "perfect storm" (true to an extent) or are you saying that you think Ellerson didn't deserve to be fired (a premise with which I completely disagree for the reasons stated above) or something else?

Thanks.

I'm saying that they should have let him and the staff rock this last season with his (all) his senior's, go out with a blast! Giving the fact we're playing weaker teams too, it's no way in hell you goin to make me believe that RE and staff wouldn't had this season locked down, specially with Maples back! COME ON NOW! WE WOULDN'T BE SEEING THIS! And you know it.... not at all

 

[ashokan]

"no way in hell you goin to make me believe that RE and staff wouldn't had this season locked down, specially with Maples back! COME ON NOW! WE WOULDN'T BE SEEING THIS! "


Oh? The same crew that lost to a 0-10 Hawaii and 0-6 Temple (who lost to Fordham) last year? They weren't going anywhere with this years Army team - especially the defense. Army need recruiting and I'd rather be recruited by an energetic and determined Monken than a half retired guy who looked like he had been deserted on Gilligan's Island the last 15 years lol.

 

[Bulletproof09]

Why you want to play ashokan.......

 

[boongoon]

DEFENSE wins championships!!!!!!

 

[WP76]

Originally posted by ashokan:

"no way in hell you goin to make me believe that RE and staff wouldn't had this season locked down, specially with Maples back! COME ON NOW! WE WOULDN'T BE SEEING THIS! "


Oh? The same crew that lost to a 0-10 Hawaii and 0-6 Temple (who lost to Fordham) last year? They weren't going anywhere with this years Army team - especially the defense. Army need recruiting and I'd rather be recruited by an energetic and determined Monken than a half retired guy who looked like he had been deserted on Gilligan's Island the last 15 years lol.

At least Monken gives us some energy. I often wondered if Ellerson even had a pulse.

 

[Bulletproof09]

You got jokes too WP76, hahaha
This post was edited on 10/23 8:18 AM by Bulletproof09

 

[goodknight65]

Originally posted by ashokan:


If you Read Monken close you can see he's telling you he doesn't have the players. Read this:


" I think the guys are playing hard," Monken said. "I don't think they quit … It was 23-17 for a while there and we needed to put together a drive and go score and we didn't. Too many negative yardage plays. Not being able to knock people off the ball. If you are going to run the football, you got to be able block people and be able to find a seam and run the ball."

See - the key is that he's not saying the guys weren't playing hard. He's saying they were playing hard and STILL couldn't execute. If he had said the team wasn't trying hard then you know there's more juice to be squeezed in the fruits. Monken knows he's not getting more juice.

Read again:

"We snap the ball and hit the shield with the punt snap. It's hard to win. You got a guy running on a pass route and you have to be able to complete the pass. I don't know what to say. You got to make plays."

He's basically saying "WTF - we can't even snap the ball right - can't complete a pass when we need one" . He's at loss for words because he can't say what he's thinking - that he has players who despite coaching and practice can't execute in games.

Luckily Monken is known as a good recuiter and he knows schools/players down south
This post was edited on 10/20 7:21 PM by ashokan

In a more recent article published in THR about Monday's team meeting, Monken stated that the team is not playing up to its potential.

Per Kelvin White reporting on the Monday practice: "(Coach Monken's) message was pretty clear to everyone," said White, a junior tight end. "We have to play better. We are very capable of playing better. Coach just wants to get all of the potential out of us. That's what we are going to do as a team."

"Monken and his players are striving for consistency. Army hasn't played a complete game on offense, defense and special teams this season."

- See more at:

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20141022/SPORTS/141029794/-1/collegevarsity01

Those comments suggest that the coaching staff is aware that they are not getting the most out of the talent available, which is a major part of the job coaches are hired to do and the only part that's going to produce Ws for the next couple of years. Fans who believe that the answer to the problem is just going out to recruit better players are ignoring the realities of SA football. The service academies win because they make better use of the talent they have available through highly disciplined well executed schemes that fit the talent they have. The chances of an SA ever producing another Heisman winner, O'Brien winner or Outland Trophy winner are virtually non-existent. We lucked out in having McNary walk onto the field at USMAPS. Neither Steelman nor Reynolds was recruited by any other team, and Steelman was the fifth rated QB of his recruiting class. Some of our best recruits never make it through the door at R-Day.

As Monken himself stated in an earlier interview, the keys to success are Recruit, Retain, and Develop. One out of three won't work at an SA.

 

[ashokan]

Well you have two quotes both by Monken so I guess its take your pick. I think the team can play better in some ways but not in others. A "strength" of SA football is supposed to be smarter play. I don't see that watching Army. In fact, Army makes some of the biggest bonehead plays I've seen (like an Army blocker on punt team releasing to go downfield while letting man in front of him go straight to backfield for a block). Blockers linning up wrong on punt team (the "shield" behind line) ended up blocking the snap. I mean if guys cant even line up right I dont see the mental advantage Army is supposed to have. I think that can be improved - and it was bad under Ellerson too.

I still say the talent is not up to D1 in too many instances. Most teams won't have a missed extra point all season. Army has 2 in one game (Buffalo) and misses chip shots vs Yale. Army kicking has been very unrelaible the last years. A kicker should not be hard to get. I also see guys tripping over their own feet and using little teachnique on places like DL. McNary was exceptional that way. Of course there's also the depth issue. Guys just cant grind for 4 quarters. Asking them too wont change that.

Something I've noticed around the league is very good football players coming from other sports - especially basketball. I think Army should do more of that. Look at the Kamiko Turay kid at Rutgers. He had one year of HS football and now leades B1G in sacks and blocked kicks. He had only the RU offer. FSU has the same kind of players. Former Miami coach Butch Davis uses to say that a lot of the top kids have had so much good coaching they dont always get that much better in college. He also said everyone is chasing the same kids. He used to like pulling players without a lot of coaching from off the beaten paths. If Navy can find good players so can Army. I don't quite go for the war excuse. Navy guys do get shot at and besides that Todd Berry said his recuting got easier instead of harder after 9-11 and the wars
This post was edited on 10/23 6:15 PM by ashokan

 

[Bulletproof09]

Originally posted by goodknight65:

Originally posted by ashokan:


If you Read Monken close you can see he's telling you he doesn't have the players. Read this:


" I think the guys are playing hard," Monken said. "I don't think they quit … It was 23-17 for a while there and we needed to put together a drive and go score and we didn't. Too many negative yardage plays. Not being able to knock people off the ball. If you are going to run the football, you got to be able block people and be able to find a seam and run the ball."

See - the key is that he's not saying the guys weren't playing hard. He's saying they were playing hard and STILL couldn't execute. If he had said the team wasn't trying hard then you know there's more juice to be squeezed in the fruits. Monken knows he's not getting more juice.

Read again:

"We snap the ball and hit the shield with the punt snap. It's hard to win. You got a guy running on a pass route and you have to be able to complete the pass. I don't know what to say. You got to make plays."

He's basically saying "WTF - we can't even snap the ball right - can't complete a pass when we need one" . He's at loss for words because he can't say what he's thinking - that he has players who despite coaching and practice can't execute in games.

Luckily Monken is known as a good recuiter and he knows schools/players down south
This post was edited on 10/20 7:21 PM by ashokan

In a more recent article published in THR about Monday's team meeting, Monken stated that the team is not playing up to its potential.

Per Kelvin White reporting on the Monday practice: "(Coach Monken's) message was pretty clear to everyone," said White, a junior tight end. "We have to play better. We are very capable of playing better. Coach just wants to get all of the potential out of us. That's what we are going to do as a team."

"Monken and his players are striving for consistency. Army hasn't played a complete game on offense, defense and special teams this season."

- See more at:

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20141022/SPORTS/141029794/-1/collegevarsity01

Those comments suggest that the coaching staff is aware that they are not getting the most out of the talent available, which is a major part of the job coaches are hired to do and the only part that's going to produce Ws for the next couple of years. Fans who believe that the answer to the problem is just going out to recruit better players are ignoring the realities of SA football. The service academies win because they make better use of the talent they have available through highly disciplined well executed schemes that fit the talent they have. The chances of an SA ever producing another Heisman winner, O'Brien winner or Outland Trophy winner are virtually non-existent. We lucked out in having McNary walk onto the field at USMAPS. Neither Steelman nor Reynolds was recruited by any other team, and Steelman was the fifth rated QB of his recruiting class. Some of our best recruits never make it through the door at R-Day.

As Monken himself stated in an earlier interview, the keys to success are Recruit, Retain, and Develop. One out of three won't work at an SA.

+1

 

[goodknight65]

Originally posted by ashokan:

Well you have two quotes both by Monken so I guess its take your pick. I think the team can play better in some ways but not in others. A "strength" of SA football is supposed to be smarter play. I don't see that watching Army. In fact, Army makes some of the biggest bonehead plays I've seen (like an Army blocker on punt team releasing to go downfield while letting man in front of him go straight to backfield for a block). Blockers linning up wrong on punt team (the "shield" behind line) ended up blocking the snap. I mean if guys cant even line up right I dont see the mental advantage Army is supposed to have. I think that can be improved - and it was bad under Ellerson too.

I still say the talent is not up to D1 in too many instances. Most teams won't have a missed extra point all season. Army has 2 in one game (Buffalo) and misses chip shots vs Yale. Army kicking has been very unrelaible the last years. A kicker should not be hard to get. I also see guys tripping over their own feet and using little teachnique on places like DL. McNary was exceptional that way. Of course there's also the depth issue. Guys just cant grind for 4 quarters. Asking them too wont change that.

Something I've noticed around the league is very good football players coming from other sports - especially basketball. I think Army should do more of that. Look at the Kamiko Turay kid at Rutgers. He had one year of HS football and now leades B1G in sacks and blocked kicks. He had only the RU offer. FSU has the same kind of players. Former Miami coach Butch Davis uses to say that a lot of the top kids have had so much good coaching they dont always get that much better in college. He also said everyone is chasing the same kids. He used to like pulling players without a lot of coaching from off the beaten paths. If Navy can find good players so can Army. I don't quite go for the war excuse. Navy guys do get shot at and besides that Todd Berry said his recuting got easier instead of harder after 9-11 and the wars
This post was edited on 10/23 6:15 PM by ashokan

I hope you're not going to argue that Army's players are not as intelligent as the average FBS player)

I agree that we've seen too many boneheaded plays, and I also have seen a few inexplicable decisions made by the coaching staffl. Can you explain why Joe Walker was sent in to take the pitch on that critical play against WF, when Monken had Maples, Baggett, Giovanelli, and Turrentine to choose from? I can't figure that one out. Talk about not taking advantage of the talent you have. It was Walker's second rushing attempt of his very limited career. Let him make those kinds of mistakes when we're 30 points ahead of Buffalo or 25 points behind Stanford, not when we're driving for the go ahead TD. Another hard to fathom decision was starting Houghton ahead of McDonald after the interception by Jenkins at the start of the Kent State game. McDonald was injured the week before, but was available to play. We had a short field situation and an opportunity to get a jump on KSU with a quick TD, but Houghton, no doubt under pressure in his first starting assignment held on a play, where the hold didn't influence the outcome, other than to set us back 10 yards and make us settle for a FG.

Out of curiosity, I checked the profiles of the offensive linemen for Navy to see how many of them started a game as a plebe. The answer is NONE. Only one of them played at all as a plebe, and then only on special teams, according to their bios.

The snap that bounced off the shield on that punt was inexcusable in my mind. Is that inadequate coaching or players that don't get it? I believe the player that got in the way of the snap was Giachinta.

The kicking game is only partially Growchowski's fault. He's had a few bad snaps and/or holds including the last PAT that he never had a chance to try, and at least one of the missed FGs against Buffalo. The missed FG at the end of the Yale game was fairly well kicked, but into a head wind from 43 yards out. It was plenty high, and, in fact may have been too high considering the wind factor, as what started off as a draw ended up as a hook as it crossed the plane of the goal post. He'd have had a better chance if we hadn't taken a holding penalty that negated a 7 yard gain a few plays before that. Remember, this is the same Growchowski who was 37 of 37 on PATs and 8 of 11 on FGs in 2013 with Ellerson's son doing the long snapping. If it's any consolation, Sloan of Navy is only 3 of 8 on FGs this year.

I do think that Monken may be trying to do too much too soon, and that's part of the problem with the mental errors. It makes me wonder if he's trying to implement the complete offense he built over 4 years at GSU in half a season at Army. As you noted, the hallmark of good SA teams is disciplined execution and it's easier to learn to execute a more limited repertoire and then build on that over time than it is to try to learn a poor mans version of the Oregon offense in 6 months. Monken, himself said it was like trying to drink out of a fire hose. It seems it would be easier to steal some of the plays from the Shields playbook that the players already know and then build on that. I don't know how much overlap there is, but it seems that there are a lot more things going on down there now than before.

BTW, like you, I've always thought that we could pick up some guys from other sports, in particular a few WRs/TEs from basketball. What happens to a 6' 7" basketball player who can't make the grade playing roundball at the D1 level? Good hands, good size. Remember that Villanueva had almost no football experience before WP.

 

[Bulletproof09]

Originally posted by goodknight65:

Originally posted by ashokan:

Well you have two quotes both by Monken so I guess its take your pick. I think the team can play better in some ways but not in others. A "strength" of SA football is supposed to be smarter play. I don't see that watching Army. In fact, Army makes some of the biggest bonehead plays I've seen (like an Army blocker on punt team releasing to go downfield while letting man in front of him go straight to backfield for a block). Blockers linning up wrong on punt team (the "shield" behind line) ended up blocking the snap. I mean if guys cant even line up right I dont see the mental advantage Army is supposed to have. I think that can be improved - and it was bad under Ellerson too.

I still say the talent is not up to D1 in too many instances. Most teams won't have a missed extra point all season. Army has 2 in one game (Buffalo) and misses chip shots vs Yale. Army kicking has been very unrelaible the last years. A kicker should not be hard to get. I also see guys tripping over their own feet and using little teachnique on places like DL. McNary was exceptional that way. Of course there's also the depth issue. Guys just cant grind for 4 quarters. Asking them too wont change that.

Something I've noticed around the league is very good football players coming from other sports - especially basketball. I think Army should do more of that. Look at the Kamiko Turay kid at Rutgers. He had one year of HS football and now leades B1G in sacks and blocked kicks. He had only the RU offer. FSU has the same kind of players. Former Miami coach Butch Davis uses to say that a lot of the top kids have had so much good coaching they dont always get that much better in college. He also said everyone is chasing the same kids. He used to like pulling players without a lot of coaching from off the beaten paths. If Navy can find good players so can Army. I don't quite go for the war excuse. Navy guys do get shot at and besides that Todd Berry said his recuting got easier instead of harder after 9-11 and the wars
This post was edited on 10/23 6:15 PM by ashokan

I hope you're not going to argue that Army's players are not as intelligent as the average FBS player)

I agree that we've seen too many boneheaded plays, and I also have seen a few inexplicable decisions made by the coaching staffl. Can you explain why Joe Walker was sent in to take the pitch on that critical play against WF, when Monken had Maples, Baggett, Giovanelli, and Turrentine to choose from? I can't figure that one out. Talk about not taking advantage of the talent you have. It was Walker's second rushing attempt of his very limited career. Let him make those kinds of mistakes when we're 30 points ahead of Buffalo or 25 points behind Stanford, not when we're driving for the go ahead TD. Another hard to fathom decision was starting Houghton ahead of McDonald after the interception by Jenkins at the start of the Kent State game. McDonald was injured the week before, but was available to play. We had a short field situation and an opportunity to get a jump on KSU with a quick TD, but Houghton, no doubt under pressure in his first starting assignment held on a play, where the hold didn't influence the outcome, other than to set us back 10 yards and make us settle for a FG.

Out of curiosity, I checked the profiles of the offensive linemen for Navy to see how many of them started a game as a plebe. The answer is NONE. Only one of them played at all as a plebe, and then only on special teams, according to their bios.

The snap that bounced off the shield on that punt was inexcusable in my mind. Is that inadequate coaching or players that don't get it? I believe the player that got in the way of the snap was Giachinta.

The kicking game is only partially Growchowski's fault. He's had a few bad snaps and/or holds including the last PAT that he never had a chance to try, and at least one of the missed FGs against Buffalo. The missed FG at the end of the Yale game was fairly well kicked, but into a head wind from 43 yards out. It was plenty high, and, in fact may have been too high considering the wind factor, as what started off as a draw ended up as a hook as it crossed the plane of the goal post. He'd have had a better chance if we hadn't taken a holding penalty that negated a 7 yard gain a few plays before that. Remember, this is the same Growchowski who was 37 of 37 on PATs and 8 of 11 on FGs in 2013 with Ellerson's son doing the long snapping. If it's any consolation, Sloan of Navy is only 3 of 8 on FGs this year.

I do think that Monken may be trying to do too much too soon, and that's part of the problem with the mental errors. It makes me wonder if he's trying to implement the complete offense he built over 4 years at GSU in half a season at Army. As you noted, the hallmark of good SA teams is disciplined execution and it's easier to learn to execute a more limited repertoire and then build on that over time than it is to try to learn a poor mans version of the Oregon offense in 6 months. Monken, himself said it was like trying to drink out of a fire hose. It seems it would be easier to steal some of the plays from the Shields playbook that the players already know and then build on that. I don't know how much overlap there is, but it seems that there are a lot more things going on down there now than before.

BTW, like you, I've always thought that we could pick up some guys from other sports, in particular a few WRs/TEs from basketball. What happens to a 6' 7" basketball player who can't make the grade playing roundball at the D1 level? Good hands, good size. Remember that Villanueva had almost no football experience before WP.

+1