Navy BBacks

gtg936g

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,061
We also beat Duke who ended up winning the coastal.

I admit we have a long way to go to being relevant in the national picture, but their schedule was very weak in 2013.
 

nodawgs

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
366
Whatever dude. You're nitpicking does nothing to refute his main point: Navy's schedule is a cakewalk compared to ours. Do you disagree with that? If so, please explain.
Not trying to dispute strength of schedule. Just stating a fact about CPJ vs Air Force and Middle Tennessee State. Carry on.
 

nodawgs

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
366
We also beat Duke who ended up winning the coastal.

I admit we have a long way to go to being relevant in the national picture, but their schedule was very weak in 2013.
I really don't know what to think about Duke moving forward. Yes they've improved, but I really don't see them as a threat. I think they match up well vs Va Tech and Miami, but besides that I don't think they are a concern or anything to worry about. Texas A&M had a terrible defense and Cutcliffe had extra time to prepare for them. My guess is they will be like Wake Forest was 6-7 years ago where they are respectable and capable of pulling some upsets, but still not be nationally respected.
 

gtg936g

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,061
I really don't know what to think about Duke moving forward. Yes they've improved, but I really don't see them as a threat. I think they match up well vs Va Tech and Miami, but besides that I don't think they are a concern or anything to worry about. Texas A&M had a terrible defense and Cutcliffe had extra time to prepare for them. My guess is they will be like Wake Forest was 6-7 years ago where they are respectable and capable of pulling some upsets, but still not be nationally respected.


I agree. I think they are well coached, and benefitted from playing Miami without Duke Johnson. I will say they are a team that gets the most out of their talent. They matched up better against Florida State than I thought they would.
 

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,487
It's silly to downplay Duke's success last year. Now they may not be able to replace players they have lost and I wouldn't bet they will repeat next year. But they did have a good year last year and proved they were a solid team against tough opponents.
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,526
Location
Georgia
And yet were still more productive than Navy across the board with the exception of rush yards per game. I just don't buy all the fuss about how PJ needs to "adapt" the offense and change this or change that. It's about execution in my mind. Every play is designed to work if executed properly. I'm not opposed to adding a few wrinkles, but I think if we simply execute our blocks we win most of the time with our base package. Here is a quick comparison of the two offenses from last season and where they ranked in each category.

Total Off RYG PYG Total YPG Pts/Game

Tech 43rd 5th 117th 44th 26th

Navy 58th 3rd 122nd 61st 35th

And my point was nothing about production its about scheme. We have better athletes too. So i get your reply but it really doesn't address my point.

My point is our production may be even BETTER and more diverse if we adapt some of the concepts Navy and Monken did. THATs my point. My point is not saying Navy is getting more yards
 
Messages
2,077
have you guys watched the navy offense lately? It is a modernized version of what paul ran. Its not the same as ours.

One thing both Monken and Coach N have done is adapt the offense. They run sets we don't...they run different versions of plays with more formations to keep the D guessing. we don't. Paul has really been stuck in the mud with offensive progression, and some of the monken tweaks are really great and can work for us. I was hoping Cook would help bring some new thought to this deal. Maybe this year we see some of that.
I was just going to ask, doesn't Coach Ken have the BB deeper in the backfield?
 
Messages
2,077
So that makes their schedule harder than ours... 2 games? And one of those 2 is a team we crush 9 times out of 10.

I agree about Middle Tennessee. We were the better team, but can we acknowledge we got pounded for two reasons? We didn't play well, and we were not ready to play, period. I honestly don't think we should ever lose to Air Force either. But we did.
 
Messages
2,077
It's silly to downplay Duke's success last year. Now they may not be able to replace players they have lost and I wouldn't bet they will repeat next year. But they did have a good year last year and proved they were a solid team against tough opponents.

Duke will be solid again. Yes, they may not repeat as division champs, but they will be good. In fact, if we have any designs on winning the Coastal ourselves, we probably have to beat Duke and then hope Duke takes care of Virginia Tech and Miami for us. The Coastal winner is once again likely to be the surviving team with 2 Coastal losses.
 

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,487
And my point was nothing about production its about scheme. We have better athletes too. So i get your reply but it really doesn't address my point.

My point is our production may be even BETTER and more diverse if we adapt some of the concepts Navy and Monken did. THATs my point. My point is not saying Navy is getting more yards

Last year we tried adapting more schemes and concepts. Didn't do the new stuff as well as I'd like and regressed tremendously in our base IMO. That's on coach. I will grant you that criticism. Seemed like we either implented too much new stuff or used a QB who was not a good fit for our base. Bottom line though is we didn't do any of it well enough. That doesn't mean the best might not have been made with what we had. But we obviously want to do better on O than we did last year. Prior years I have no issue with the O or the scheme. Prior years the onus was on the D and or special teams.

After digressing a bit, my point is.....new adaptations / schemes / plays....do not always equate to more success.
 
Messages
2,077
Last year we tried adapting more schemes and concepts. Didn't do the new stuff as well as I'd like and regressed tremendously in our base IMO. That's on coach. I will grant you that criticism. Seemed like we either implented too much new stuff or used a QB who was not a good fit for our base. Bottom line though is we didn't do any of it well enough. That doesn't mean the best might not have been made with what we had. But we obviously want to do better on O than we did last year. Prior years I have no issue with the O or the scheme. Prior years the onus was on the D and or special teams.

After digressing a bit, my point is.....new adaptations / schemes / plays....do not always equate to more success.
Not to compare coaches, but, in 1962 Georgia Tech came out in a new shotgun formation against Alabama. It really wasn't even a shotgun, it was the qb 9 or ten yards deep like a short punt formation. And it was fortuitous that our qb at the time was also our NFL class punter. The formation gave Lothridge additional time to throw against Alabama's savage rush, and also put him in space if he needed to run. And they could never discount the possibilty of a punt on a drizzly day. We won the game, broke Alabama's 31 game winning streak. Some times innovation works well.
 

nodawgs

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
366
Last year we tried adapting more schemes and concepts. Didn't do the new stuff as well as I'd like and regressed tremendously in our base IMO. That's on coach. I will grant you that criticism. Seemed like we either implented too much new stuff or used a QB who was not a good fit for our base. Bottom line though is we didn't do any of it well enough. That doesn't mean the best might not have been made with what we had. But we obviously want to do better on O than we did last year. Prior years I have no issue with the O or the scheme. Prior years the onus was on the D and or special teams.

After digressing a bit, my point is.....new adaptations / schemes / plays....do not always equate to more success.
It's not like we added a whole new play book. We added a diamond formation with 3 plays. That's far less formations and plays than any other team in the country, who already have much thicker play books. I don't buy that adding one new formation was to blame for the offensive problems. No way.
 

turfjacket

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
281
have you guys watched the navy offense lately? It is a modernized version of what paul ran. Its not the same as ours.

One thing both Monken and Coach N have done is adapt the offense. They run sets we don't...they run different versions of plays with more formations to keep the D guessing. we don't. Paul has really been stuck in the mud with offensive progression, and some of the monken tweaks are really great and can work for us. I was hoping Cook would help bring some new thought to this deal. Maybe this year we see some of that.

@33jacket I did read your post to mean that if we did things like Navy we would be as good as them, so apologies for that. However, I don't believe we need to adapt I just think we need to execute better. You mentioned that "Paul has really been stuck in the mud with offensive progression". My opinion is Paul doesn't need to progress. He just needs to teach better execution with our base package. He also needs a QB committed to the base package. I think once those two things are in place we will see the offense expand into different formations etc...
 

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,487
It's not like we added a whole new play book. We added a diamond formation with 3 plays. That's far less formations and plays than any other team in the country, who already have much thicker play books. I don't buy that adding one new formation was to blame for the offensive problems. No way.

Didn't say that was the sole reason for our offensive problems. But the new stuff sure didn't help anything much. That was the point. Way.
 
Top