|
|
Post by mcnbear on Nov 27, 2019 11:01:46 GMT -5
This is a great example of how hard it is to prepare for the flex option! Not only is it hard to prepare for and hard to defend it helps the defense by controlling time of possession. Nothing more beautiful than a death march late in a game with the lead. Also, I think people think this isn’t an exciting offense. It is! Is it the only way to do it? No. But I think it is the overall best way for us to compete. It’s not just an offense it is a mindset! |
|
|
|
Post by BearDownMU on Nov 27, 2019 12:15:13 GMT -5
Army is 5-6 this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by FUBeAR on Nov 27, 2019 12:43:01 GMT -5
This is a great example of how hard it is to prepare for the flex option! Not only is it hard to prepare for and hard to defend it helps the defense by controlling time of possession. Nothing more beautiful than a death march late in a game with the lead. Also, I think people think this isn’t an exciting offense. It is! Is it the only way to do it? No. But I think it is the overall best way for us to compete. It’s not just an offense it is a mindset! “36 for Service Academies/Triple Option & 31 for Spread” OK. (BTW - both Bama & Clemson are Spread, BUT they still run the dang ball! Who knows what Mike Leach is doing out at Wazzu. He’s the Marty Feldman of college football coaches) OR “3 of top 5 Offenses being most difficult for which to prepare are Spreads.” OK. Personally, FUBeAR hates AirRaid & hates GaSou / Navy / GT / Citadel / Army / Jacksonville TO, but can live with Spread, as long as it’s multiple spread (including some 2/3 back alignments) & NEVER loses emphasis on running the dang ball. Personally, FUBeAR loves any option that makes it so the D cain’t be right, as long as that usage of option(s) doesn’t turn the Offense into a 1-Dimensional Anachronism ala GaSou / Navy / GT / Citadel / Army / Jacksonville |
|
|
|
Post by speakindatruth on Nov 27, 2019 13:33:15 GMT -5
Because I was bored and to take in to consideration an earlier comment, I did some math on some games this year. I took out Western Carolina, Presbyterian and North Carolina. We gave up 31.8 points average and scored 24.6, I also subtracted the 14 points against Austin Peay that were pick sixes. Clearly our offense was successful at times while we failed to stop the opposing team. I can remember on more than one occasion us scoring and then the opposing offense breaking loose a long run and scoring in three plays. We had a great mixture of throw and run, but many times we found ourselves down and having to go one dimensional. Much like the offenses of the academies, GT, and Kennesaw; once they get down 2 TD’s very little chance at coming back.
We can debate this all day, offense is a matter of preference. I said last year and I’ll say it again, if we can learn to fly around more and attack on defense we will be much better. A more attacking scheme with better eye discipline will go a long ways in taking advantage of the weapons we have on both sides of the ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by FUBeAR on Nov 27, 2019 15:05:33 GMT -5
Because I was bored and to take in to consideration an earlier comment, I did some math on some games this year. I took out Western Carolina, Presbyterian and North Carolina. We gave up 31.8 points average and scored 24.6, I also subtracted the 14 points against Austin Peay that were pick sixes. Clearly our offense was successful at times while we failed to stop the opposing team. I can remember on more than one occasion us scoring and then the opposing offense breaking loose a long run and scoring in three plays. We had a great mixture of throw and run, but many times we found ourselves down and having to go one dimensional. Much like the offenses of the academies, GT, and Kennesaw; once they get down 2 TD’s very little chance at coming back. We can debate this all day, offense is a matter of preference. I said last year and I’ll say it again, if we can learn to fly around more and attack on defense we will be much better. A more attacking scheme with better eye discipline will go a long ways in taking advantage of the weapons we have on both sides of the ball. Interesting. Don’t think you should take WCU out of that analysis though. Not sure why you would. They are a SoCon Team playing on a more or less level playing field with Mercer. They won more SoCon games than ETSU. Extracting PC & UNC stats makes sense because they are FBS P5 & essentially, a non-scholarship Team. Also - for Opponents’ Defensive TD’s or Safeties (if there were any), would it make sense to subtract those points from BOTH the O & D’s Points Scored/Points Allowed numbers? The severity/impact of an Opponent’s D scoring points might warrant such a treatment. I don’t think there were any this year, but for this kind of analysis, I think it’s OK to ‘leave’ Special Teams (except blocked FG’s & XP’s...but including Blocked Punts) scores ‘on’ the D because most of the Players on those ST’s (KO, Punt) are Defensive Players. And, conversely, PR & KOR score, nor (Mercer) Defensive Scores should be ‘credited’ to the Mercer O. I think getting into scoring on short fields due to turnovers / blocks would be challenging to assess, but maybe it would be fair to consider some offensive penalty and/or defensive allowance for O turnovers inside the 20. I think the point of this analysis is to assess which ‘side of the ball’ had more impact on the 4-8 record, which I’m not sure is a worthwhile analysis, but if you want to do it, I think those might be some valid points to consider...maybe not. |
|
|
|
Post by speakindatruth on Nov 27, 2019 15:36:02 GMT -5
Because I was bored and to take in to consideration an earlier comment, I did some math on some games this year. I took out Western Carolina, Presbyterian and North Carolina. We gave up 31.8 points average and scored 24.6, I also subtracted the 14 points against Austin Peay that were pick sixes. Clearly our offense was successful at times while we failed to stop the opposing team. I can remember on more than one occasion us scoring and then the opposing offense breaking loose a long run and scoring in three plays. We had a great mixture of throw and run, but many times we found ourselves down and having to go one dimensional. Much like the offenses of the academies, GT, and Kennesaw; once they get down 2 TD’s very little chance at coming back. We can debate this all day, offense is a matter of preference. I said last year and I’ll say it again, if we can learn to fly around more and attack on defense we will be much better. A more attacking scheme with better eye discipline will go a long ways in taking advantage of the weapons we have on both sides of the ball. Interesting. Don’t think you should take WCU out of that analysis though. Not sure why you would. They are a SoCon Team playing on a more or less level playing field with Mercer. They won more SoCon games than ETSU. Extracting PC & UNC stats makes sense because they are FBS P5 & essentially, a non-scholarship Team. Also - for Opponents’ Defensive TD’s or Safeties (if there were any), would it make sense to subtract those points from BOTH the O & D’s Points Scored/Points Allowed numbers? The severity/impact of an Opponent’s D scoring points might warrant such a treatment. I don’t think there were any this year, but for this kind of analysis, I think it’s OK to ‘leave’ Special Teams (except blocked FG’s & XP’s...but including Blocked Punts) scores ‘on’ the D because most of the Players on those ST’s (KO, Punt) are Defensive Players. And, conversely, PR & KOR score, nor (Mercer) Defensive Scores should be ‘credited’ to the Mercer O. I think getting into scoring on short fields due to turnovers / blocks would be challenging to assess, but maybe it would be fair to consider some offensive penalty and/or defensive allowance for O turnovers inside the 20. I think the point of this analysis is to assess which ‘side of the ball’ had more impact on the 4-8 record, which I’m not sure is a worthwhile analysis, but if you want to do it, I think those might be some valid points to consider...maybe not. That is the whole point. We keep harping on one side of the ball when factually there was a multitude of issues. We keep focusing on the offense which was not solely the problem. You can put the option in and it means nothing if it can’t stop anyone. You can get Bill Belicheck to coach the defense and it means nothing if we don’t score. I do like the spread more; but I like the RPO game with the ability to hit you in the mouth with the run game at the same time we work the field through the air. Just not a fan of the option left, right, dive-game. |
|
|
|
Post by mcnbear on Nov 27, 2019 16:22:59 GMT -5
Interesting. Don’t think you should take WCU out of that analysis though. Not sure why you would. They are a SoCon Team playing on a more or less level playing field with Mercer. They won more SoCon games than ETSU. Extracting PC & UNC stats makes sense because they are FBS P5 & essentially, a non-scholarship Team. Also - for Opponents’ Defensive TD’s or Safeties (if there were any), would it make sense to subtract those points from BOTH the O & D’s Points Scored/Points Allowed numbers? The severity/impact of an Opponent’s D scoring points might warrant such a treatment. I don’t think there were any this year, but for this kind of analysis, I think it’s OK to ‘leave’ Special Teams (except blocked FG’s & XP’s...but including Blocked Punts) scores ‘on’ the D because most of the Players on those ST’s (KO, Punt) are Defensive Players. And, conversely, PR & KOR score, nor (Mercer) Defensive Scores should be ‘credited’ to the Mercer O. I think getting into scoring on short fields due to turnovers / blocks would be challenging to assess, but maybe it would be fair to consider some offensive penalty and/or defensive allowance for O turnovers inside the 20. I think the point of this analysis is to assess which ‘side of the ball’ had more impact on the 4-8 record, which I’m not sure is a worthwhile analysis, but if you want to do it, I think those might be some valid points to consider...maybe not. That is the whole point. We keep harping on one side of the ball when factually there was a multitude of issues. We keep focusing on the offense which was not solely the problem. You can put the option in and it means nothing if it can’t stop anyone. You can get Bill Belicheck to coach the defense and it means nothing if we don’t score. I do like the spread more; but I like the RPO game with the ability to hit you in the mouth with the run game at the same time we work the field through the air. Just not a fan of the option left, right, dive-game. We keep saying the same things. I’ve expressed how I believe the flex option offense helps both sides of the ball. It limits time of possession for the opponent. It limits how many times they have the opportunity to score. That’s how Army takes Michigan to overtime this year and Oklahoma to overtime last year. That’s how Army had consecutive 10 win seasons and won 11 games last for the first time ever. They are 5-6 this year true, but they are competitive in every game and every year isn’t going to be great. Look at the WHOLE PICTURE of what Jeff Monken has done Army. It is absolutely amazing what he has done there. I also keep seeing dive left and dive right. If you have actually ever watched Navy or Army or Air Force or Kennesaw this offense is not boring. Boring to me is watching every school in the country get in the shotgun and have incomplete passes and 3 and outs and the defense is right back on the field. Watch the MAC schools on Tuesday or Wednesday nights. That is boring. Why do we want to look like that? I don’t. That doesn’t mean we can’t pass the ball by the way. This offense often times produces wide open receivers. Look at what Navy did against SMU the other night a top 25 team, which Navy is also by the way. I just think it would be great to have a unique product in Macon GA where we can get great athletes, maybe not the elite ones but certainly great athletes and this to me is the best way to take advantage of that on both sides of the ball. You want one thing I want another. We both want to win. I want a unique product. Now is the right time to make that happen in my opinion. I will just leave it at this and trust AD Cole to make the best decision for Mercer. |
|
|
|
Post by FUBeAR on Nov 27, 2019 18:47:20 GMT -5
Air Force’s O is not the Army/Navy/Kennesaw/Citadel/Jacksonville O.
It’s more like Furman’s O; no surprise since Coach Hendrix was the OC @ AF at one point. They (Furman & AF) line up in the double wing occasionally & will use similar motion, but they are not hide-bound to ‘establishing the FB dive’ & ‘staying on schedule.’ They also don’t expect their QB to be a RB who can (debatably) chunk it a little. Army’s QB is their leading rusher & averages 13 carries/game. AF’s QB’s avg rushing attempts/game is about half that.
LOVE option Football - ran the true triple option veer out of the I-formation when I played @ FU. Also ran power gap (man) schemes & a ton of zone scheme (well before its time) Toss Sweep & RAN THE DANG BALL (anything less than 250 yds/game was considered FAILING). At the same time, that O put 1 starting QB in the NFL (Packers) & another into a solid run in an NFL Training Camp (Seahawks).
As much as FUBeAR LOVES running the dang ball, he wants no part of those apples that fell from the GaSou/Johnson et al Tree...nor the cult that idolizes ‘their triple.’
But, hey, I’m an outsider...y’all try to reincarnate Erk’s spirit if you want. Maybe it’ll sell a few tickets. Need to get some yellow school buses & pipe some Ocmulgee water over to campus & the Soarin’ Bears (who won’t hardly be able to complete a pass vs. Air) will be tearin’ up the SoCon!
|
|
|
|
It’s done
Nov 28, 2019 8:29:49 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Mcnbearas guest on Nov 28, 2019 8:29:49 GMT -5
Air Force’s O is not the Army/Navy/Kennesaw/Citadel/Jacksonville O. It’s more like Furman’s O; no surprise since Coach Hendrix was the OC @ AF at one point. They (Furman & AF) line up in the double wing occasionally & will use similar motion, but they are not hide-bound to ‘establishing the FB dive’ & ‘staying on schedule.’ They also don’t expect their QB to be a RB who can (debatably) chunk it a little. Army’s QB is their leading rusher & averages 13 carries/game. AF’s QB’s avg rushing attempts/game is about half that. LOVE option Football - ran the true triple option veer out of the I-formation when I played @ FU. Also ran power gap (man) schemes & a ton of zone scheme (well before its time) Toss Sweep & RAN THE DANG BALL (anything less than 250 yds/game was considered FAILING). At the same time, that O put 1 starting QB in the NFL (Packers) & another into a solid run in an NFL Training Camp (Seahawks). As much as FUBeAR LOVES running the dang ball, he wants no part of those apples that fell from the GaSou/Johnson et al Tree...nor the cult that idolizes ‘their triple.’ But, hey, I’m an outsider...y’all try to reincarnate Erk’s spirit if you want. Maybe it’ll sell a few tickets. Need to get some yellow school buses & pipe some Ocmulgee water over to campus & the Soarin’ Bears (who won’t hardly be able to complete a pass vs. Air) will be tearin’ up the SoCon! You seem to have som deep seeded hate for Ga Southern. Not sure what that’s about. I don’t know much about them. My affinity for the flex bone offense is because of Paul Johnson at GT and Navy and watching and admiring Navy/Army/ and more recently Kennesaw. And by the way Air Force absolutely runs Paul Johnson under center flex. At least in the games I have actually watched this year they did. And you say you like running the ball but won’t be happy unless we pass it 25 times a game and act like you can’t pass out of this offense witch I’m sure you know can and is done. Would you rather throw the ball 25+ times a game and look cool at least in your eyes while continuing to lose half our games. I would rather win and win consistently. Anyway. Happy Thanksgiving Mercer nation. |
|
|
|
Post by jackal on Nov 28, 2019 8:57:07 GMT -5
1. Hire the right coach.
2. Recruit, develop, (and retain) quality players.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackal on Nov 28, 2019 11:00:46 GMT -5
Because I was bored and to take in to consideration an earlier comment, I did some math on some games this year. I took out Western Carolina, Presbyterian and North Carolina. We gave up 31.8 points average and scored 24.6, I also subtracted the 14 points against Austin Peay that were pick sixes. Clearly our offense was successful at times while we failed to stop the opposing team. I can remember on more than one occasion us scoring and then the opposing offense breaking loose a long run and scoring in three plays. We had a great mixture of throw and run, but many times we found ourselves down and having to go one dimensional. Much like the offenses of the academies, GT, and Kennesaw; once they get down 2 TD’s very little chance at coming back. We can debate this all day, offense is a matter of preference. I said last year and I’ll say it again, if we can learn to fly around more and attack on defense we will be much better. A more attacking scheme with better eye discipline will go a long ways in taking advantage of the weapons we have on both sides of the ball. Just an outsider perspective, but I do not think that matters as much as you think it does. Most SoCon teams run variations of similar defensive schemes. FCS programs are usually left to recruit a similar type of athlete and defensive systems tend to form around the skills of those athletes. I have this debate with Furman fans all the time. They hate watching underneath zone coverage, but it is largely the concept that most FCS (and a lot of FBS programs) are forced to run unless you have some studs at CB. |
|
|
|
Post by FUBeAR on Nov 28, 2019 11:22:22 GMT -5
Air Force’s O is not the Army/Navy/Kennesaw/Citadel/Jacksonville O. It’s more like Furman’s O; no surprise since Coach Hendrix was the OC @ AF at one point. They (Furman & AF) line up in the double wing occasionally & will use similar motion, but they are not hide-bound to ‘establishing the FB dive’ & ‘staying on schedule.’ They also don’t expect their QB to be a RB who can (debatably) chunk it a little. Army’s QB is their leading rusher & averages 13 carries/game. AF’s QB’s avg rushing attempts/game is about half that. LOVE option Football - ran the true triple option veer out of the I-formation when I played @ FU. Also ran power gap (man) schemes & a ton of zone scheme (well before its time) Toss Sweep & RAN THE DANG BALL (anything less than 250 yds/game was considered FAILING). At the same time, that O put 1 starting QB in the NFL (Packers) & another into a solid run in an NFL Training Camp (Seahawks). As much as FUBeAR LOVES running the dang ball, he wants no part of those apples that fell from the GaSou/Johnson et al Tree...nor the cult that idolizes ‘their triple.’ But, hey, I’m an outsider...y’all try to reincarnate Erk’s spirit if you want. Maybe it’ll sell a few tickets. Need to get some yellow school buses & pipe some Ocmulgee water over to campus & the Soarin’ Bears (who won’t hardly be able to complete a pass vs. Air) will be tearin’ up the SoCon! ...rather throw the ball 25+ times a game and look cool at least in your eyes LOL - yes FUBeAR is widely known on these here interwebs as a steadfast proponent of eschewing the running game in favor of looking cool & slangin’ it all over the field. Have long said & been oft quoted pooh-poohing NDSU’s boring style. I mean, those foolish bizuns are running the ball 70% of the time & only attempting 20 passes/game. Completely wasting their time running that silly A-Gap Power, when they could be spending that time throwing way cooler sideways bubble screens 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage. Morons! |
|
|
|
Post by FUBeAR on Nov 29, 2019 23:43:17 GMT -5
Bobo?
|
|
|
|
Post by BearDownMU on Nov 30, 2019 1:55:39 GMT -5
I think $1.8m per year is out of our price range. |
|
|
|
Post by FUBeAR on Nov 30, 2019 9:02:03 GMT -5
|
|
