From Monken's Army introductory presser: http://coachingsearch.com/article?a=Jeff-Monken-introduced-at-Army-We-will-beat-Navy Pretty interesting if you look back and see that CPJ all but eliminated the diamond/pistol stuff after the VT game because he thought the offense was executing the base stuff well enough. Monken, on the other hand, realizes that the base stuff isn't always going to surprise the opposing team even though there's several adjustments you can make to blocking on various plays. In addition to changing blocking schemes, Monken is adding the dimension of timing and angles because of running plays out of the gun. My personal opinion is our talent deficit versus certain teams coupled with opposing teams getting better at defending it/use to defending is a big factor in why we were so bad in executing our base offense much of the year. Teams know if they can beat our cut blocks, they can get to the ball carrier. Ole Miss is a great example of a team focusing so much on defeating our cut blocks that once they got use to game speed, they were able to disrupt our base stuff. We were complaining that our players just weren't executing, but I've seen a lot of instances this year that our players were just purely beaten man versus man because the defender knew how to keep our players from cutting them (watch the Pitt game for a great example of it). Sometimes it's not because our players just missed their assignment, it's also because the defender was a lot strong enough/fast enough/and just flat out better than our guys trying to block the defender out of the play. Aaron Donald of Pitt (Yeah, I know we beat Pitt), Robert Nkemdiche are two examples of guys who just physically beat our guys and got to the ball. Would changing the timing and angles of blocking them have changed anything? Who knows, but it would have been nice to see more variation that Monken alludes to.