Posted: 11/10/2012 1:27 PM
Posted: 11/10/2012 1:31 PM
Posted: 11/10/2012 1:33 PM
Posted: 11/10/2012 1:36 PM
Posted: 11/10/2012 1:40 PM
Posted: 11/10/2012 1:41 PM
Posted: 11/10/2012 4:10 PM
Posted: 11/10/2012 4:35 PM
Posted: 11/10/2012 7:34 PM
Posted: 11/10/2012 7:46 PM
Posted: 11/10/2012 8:01 PM
mnagy wrote: Actually, I think Army is improving, and we/Navy will have our hands full. Army was in the game until the last quarter or so. And, let's face it Rutgers is a better team. All athletes will tell you that you need to learn how to win. I think Army is on the right track. Is RE the right coach? Probably not. But maybe the kids are figuring out how to win in spite of him.What I do know is that the players gave it their all today.
Posted: 11/10/2012 10:17 PM
Posted: 11/10/2012 10:25 PM
Posted: 11/10/2012 10:42 PM
I am not an RE apologist - but give it a rest. I'm as frustrated as anybody about the way the season has gone. But to blame this one on the coaches is just lunacy.
In the last 15 years, has anybody seen an Army offense as effective as it has been lately? I haven't. When TB and SB were coaching, the majority of us were screaming for an option offense - one that could control the clock, and roll down the field with precision. We wanted a mobile, smart QB. We wanted some outside running threats. We wanted some 'no quit' offensive linemen who could get people on the ground. And we wanted a powerful fullback who could move the pile. Guess what? We have all of that. And we beat the hell out of one of our main rivals last week.
We made some mistakes today. And yes, it happens way too often. But it wasn't the coach today.
Boys - you have a good shot to win these last two games. Forget about this one, forget about the 'know-it-alls' on this board. Some of us have faith that you will get it done, and bring the CIC home.
Posted: 11/10/2012 11:01 PM
gomoose90 wrote: We wanted some 'no quit' offensive linemen who could get people on the ground.
We wanted some 'no quit' offensive linemen who could get people on the ground.
Posted: 11/10/2012 11:05 PM
Posted: 11/11/2012 10:40 AM
armytackle7808 wrote:The O-line was not the problem with the previous staffs. Check the numbers brother. ...gomoose90 wrote: We wanted some 'no quit' offensive linemen who could get people on the ground.
Posted: 11/11/2012 12:55 PM
The first three games of the season, the big complaint was that we were scoring 40 points a game but had the worst defense in the country, and I agreed with the argument that the coaches were to blame for that. The last two games, the defense has performed exceptionally well against two good opponents. The coaches were blamed for the poor performance of the defense at the beginning of the season, but aren't being given credit for the turnaround. Some claimed that our guys are just too small to compete effectively against the big guys, arguing that the only reason we did well against AF was that we were playing guys our size. The detractors argued that the big guys from Rutgers and Temple would run all over us. Didn't happen! Our defense held Rutgers to 130 yards rushing. Only Syracuse and Kent State held RU to less. Our defense held RU to 252 yards total offense, and only Syracuse has done better against Rutgers this year, holding them to 237. If you blame the coaching staff for the poor showing of the defense at the start of the season, you have to give them credit for the turnaround as well. Ellerson has shown that he can produce a good defense without the 300 pounders that so many people thought we needed. For three quarters we held RU to a standstill on the scoreboard and outplayed the bigger team in most other respects (we were clearly outplayed in special teams). Many on this forum predicted that it would be a Rutgers blowout no matter how well we played, because Rutgers was just bigger and better than we are. There was no blowout by a superior team. Rutgers came into the game with a rush defense that was holding opponents to a measly 88 yards per game. Our offense performed below its average, which was to be expected, but still gained three times the average of Rutgers other opponents on the ground, and did as well or better on total offense as all but Syracuse of RUs Big East opponents. I am frustrated by our inability to turn superior performance into Ws just as others are on this site, but our offense has proven itself quite capable of running effectively against some top FBS teams, and our defense has improved enough to be competitive with a lot of better teams now as well. We're getting better on keeping the penalties down, which is one of the best indicators of disciplined football. When we manage to keep the ball off the ground, we can win against some of the better teams in the country. I'm with those who don't put the blame on the coaching staff for this loss. In fact, I would congratulate them for turning this into a more interesting game than I expected it would be.
Posted: 11/11/2012 3:17 PM
Posted: 11/11/2012 4:10 PM
jimbearnj wrote: I don't get some of these post. The game plan was solid and the team was in the game 7-7 in the fourth quarter. It's not on the coaching that guys fumble, drop a TD pass (although it probably was a TD)and the short snapper who has to replace the injuried loing snapper makes a poor snap or that the kicker hit two kicks low against a team known for blocking FGA. Guys have to be responsible and do their jobs. It's one of the problems fielding such a young team playing so many plebes or first year starters.
Copyright © 2013
and Scout.com. All rights reserved. This website is an unofficial independent source of news and information, and is not affiliated with any school, team, or league.
MSN PrivacyLegalAdvertise on MSNAbout our adsRSS
© 2012 Microsoft|