Week One - A Win

[swburke]

First of all, you have to love a Win to start the season over an FBS opponent. Been a while.

Offense - overall looked great. Angel made good decisions, passing game was excellent and timely, backs are experienced and block well as well as run (and can catch out of the backfield). OL will get better.

Defense - passing yards are big, but I think secondary is better. 3 picks is half of last year's total and we were near people most of the time. Tackling still needs work, but we hit people. Bacon took some bad angles and is not a real safety but needs to be on the field. We have NO as in NADA pass rush. Passing stats are so high because the Buf QB had forever to throw with no pressure. Not sure how we get that other than lots of blitzing - someone needs to beat someone one on one and that is not happening.

Special Teams - overall better in returns and coverage. Maples was in position on the onsides kick and slipped. Not sure why we missed 2 XP, but that could have been big.

Three things to work on for me are - can't have Angel put it on the ground twice, penalties are ridiculous and I am sure Monken will work to fix and again NO pass rush.

First games are tough and first games with a new coach are double tough. A W and let's get better.

 

[ashokan]

Glad coach M could get started with a win. I though maybe coach would have breathed easier if Odierno wasn't on the sidline the whole game but guys play hard when he's on the field. I don't think coach cared. 7 for 7 on the passing was nice. 2 fumbles isn't too bad for a new coach/system in first game. When the first series was a fumble I was like "uh oh here we go" (I remembered Georgia Southern had bad fumbling to open last season). I left just after 3rd quarter ended when th drizzle and wind kicked up. I turned on radio by Bear Mt Bridge and they were talking about a Buf. comeback lol.
This post was edited on 9/6 11:06 PM by ashokan

 

[RU0517581]

I saw interview with coach and he was disappointed with penalties. That makes sense but I actually didn't mind the personal fouls like Bacon's. Sure you can't have those but I'm so used to seeing Army looking flat and subdued that a little piss and vinegar now and then can be ok. Good luck @ Stanford

This post was edited on 9/7 10:23 AM by RU0517581

 

[snoopy72]

I stayed to the bitter end and it was the longest 8 minutes of my football life. The things I liked about this game were:
- Monken's enthusiasm throughout the game (he wants to win), and in peoples faces when they screwed up (especially Bacon, and linemen after 2 blocked extra points)
- Offense was great especially for the first game, passing at perfect times, and well designed pass plays
- Mixing in 5 different running backs, not counting Santiago and no fumbles by any of the 5.
- D backs who can cover and break on the ball, I suspect/hope they were told to lay back in 4th qtr; it did not work.
- Defense tackled better, and not many yards after catch except the one bubble screen for 65 yards
- Special teams were better......the two breakdown areas are now clear and can be fixed (PAT blocking and onside kicks)
- I did think Buffalo would tie the game on their last possession but the defense held on 4th and short

Penalties were a big issue that should get better (especially the 4-5 motion penalties); I believe they can fix the blocking on place kicks (if we made the two that were blocked the game end would have been less exciting), handling onside kicks will/must get better (but the last 3 onside kicks were great and tough to handle so good experience).

Not sure what to say about the TOTAL lack of pass rush on 50 drop back passes by an immobile QB, but I would like to think the coaches can scheme better, and players learn something on film.......50 opportunities without success??!!!! Bad play call on 3d down on last Army possession (FB into the middle 3 times and a punt, a left end sweep may have ended the game). I did not like the lucky pass that set up the last TD, we were running well and should have been eating the clock). But I thought the play calling was great the rest of the game, especially going on 4th down and passing on a field goal attempt (shows confidence in the O).

A first game win against a D1 program in Monken's first game.....I will happily take it!!!!

 

[ashokan]

"Not sure what to say about the TOTAL lack of pass rush on 50 drop back passes by an immobile QB"


Monken cited the size mismatch. I noticed Bufflao's OL was gigantic as soon as I entered the standium. With 3 Army rushers vs 5 leviathans Monken said it was like trying to squeeze under a door

 

[snoopy72]

I did see Monken's comments and Buffalo did have a HUGE line (all were 300+) and there was no way our 3 on their 5 was going to establish pressure. My point is that I don't know what to say about why at no time, during 50 passes by an immoblie QB, that would not run himself, did we do something different to get pressure. We were giving him simple toss and catch throws. Many times our down field coverage was good, but they had soooo long to find someone, including dump off to a check down guy when we covered down field. We knew their line was huge, it wasn't a surprise, and most other opponents will have huge lines, and 5 blocking 3.....we need a better initial game plan for that in the future, than the one we had yesterday (our opponents will sure notice our lack of pass pressure). Buffalo also had a couple of key drops by open receivers that really helped us early in the game. We did blitz a couple times and got stung by a draw play. This is my biggest area of concern that is NOT easily fixed. We were never great with pass pressure but we seemed worse in this one area.

 

[goodknight65]

Originally posted by snoopy72:
I did see Monken's comments and Buffalo did have a HUGE line (all were 300+) and there was no way our 3 on their 5 was going to establish pressure. My point is that I don't know what to say about why at no time, during 50 passes by an immoblie QB, that would not run himself, did we do something different to get pressure. We were giving him simple toss and catch throws. Many times our down field coverage was good, but they had soooo long to find someone, including dump off to a check down guy when we covered down field. We knew their line was huge, it wasn't a surprise, and most other opponents will have huge lines, and 5 blocking 3.....we need a better initial game plan for that in the future, than the one we had yesterday (our opponents will sure notice our lack of pass pressure). Buffalo also had a couple of key drops by open receivers that really helped us early in the game. We did blitz a couple times and got stung by a draw play. This is my biggest area of concern that is NOT easily fixed. We were never great with pass pressure but we seemed worse in this one area.

Once we had a 30 point lead and 9 minutes to go, I think we were trading space for time and were content to give up the short completions as long as we avoided the quick strike. In order to keep enough defenders in coverage, he could only rush with the 3 DLs and it was a big mismatch with every one of them being double teamed.

An essential part of that plan (as I see it) was to eat up the clock when we got control of the ball, but the problems with the on-side kicks and the turnover put a kink in that plan. In the end the 30 point lead held up long enough for the W, which was a pleasant change from recent years.

We did put some pressure on Licata earlier in the game. He threw the ball away a couple of times, and Pierce was called for roughing the passer, as you may recall, but the pass rush is one of the areas that will need improvement. I think that the OLBs are normally expected to be more active in that area, which is probably why they call one of them the Rush.

 

[snoopy72]

Agree we were trading space for time and that was the right strategy for us. The fumble, onside kick, and 65 yard bubble screen helped mess that strategy up. That is also why I did not like our last "lucky" pass that did set up the TD. It was risking a turnover and we would have been better served running the ball and burning time, another minute and a half would have been big. I also think that our last fumble scared us and caused the 3 straight FB dive plays on our last possession also, instead of trying a third down end run for a game ending first down.

In the end it was a much needed win, and showed us distinct areas we need to focus on in order to get better.

 

[ashokan]

Listening to Monken he said (to get more sacks) he would either need to get new players or to stunt more and play man coverage - which he didn't want to do. Maybe McNary could have had a sack, but an undersized 3 man DL going up against a pocket passer with 5 huge OL + a back isn't going to creat much excitement. I'll take the 3 INTs over no sacks