Army Game Thread

User avatar
GreenPuddleSplash
Surge
Posts: 927
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:58 am
Location: Lower Garden District
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby GreenPuddleSplash » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:41 pm

I saw a tweet and I'm currently looking for it, but I believe Banks is starting tomorrow.



User avatar
RobertM320
Tsunami
Posts: 6072
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Destrehan, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby RobertM320 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:44 pm

GreenPuddleSplash wrote:I saw a tweet and I'm currently looking for it, but I believe Banks is starting tomorrow.


Yes. Fritz stated it on the radio today.



"ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE! HANG EM AND BANG EM! HANG EM AND BANG EM!"-- Todd Graffagnini

DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 5287
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby DfromCT » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:46 pm

Robert, we're on the same page. I think the team is well ahead of where we were with CJ and Buffet Bob, even in the season that we went to the N.O. Bowl. That team should have won 10 games minimum with the ridiculous schedule they played and playing certain decent teams without key starters.

At the same time, the areas for concern, IMHO, remain special teams (which Fritz coaches himself) and the passing game. I'd like to think we can pass the ball on many of the teams remaining on our schedule, particularly Army and Tulsa. Having watched all or parts of Army's three games, I know they don't pass well, but are quite capable of hitting a deep pass over the middle when their opponent overplays their triple option running game. They are well coached, but beaten down by injuries. If we lose tomorrow, I will be worried.

I thought we'd beat Navy and lose to Army but based upon the health of Army and the fact that it's a home game against a team whose offense we know inside and out, I think we pull out a win.

ROLL WAVE!


" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your ongoing support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia

Profoundwizard
Surge
Posts: 958
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:50 pm
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby Profoundwizard » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:15 pm

D, you're way off if you think Army is better than Navy



golfnut69
Tsunami
Posts: 7097
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:38 am
Status: Online

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby golfnut69 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:16 pm



Be a Hero Today.... Adopt a Shelter Pet... The Beatles once sang "Can't Buy Me Love"... I disagree, unconditional Love can be bought, for the nominal adoption fee at your local Pet Shelter !

winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 10713
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby winwave » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:07 pm

GreenPuddleSplash wrote:I saw a tweet and I'm currently looking for it, but I believe Banks is starting tomorrow.


I posted above that Fritz said that on the radio today.


It's the facilities stupid!

Ruski
Surge
Posts: 595
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:58 pm
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby Ruski » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:16 pm

Before the season I thought going 0-2 vs Navy and Army with close games was very possible and would probably end my serious interest in the season. I thought most likely we'd go 1-1 and consider going 2-0 as turning the corner.

We played very close against Navy but too many mistakes to feel good about that loss. Unless we thump Army I'll be 7 out of 10 happy with the two games.



Ruski
Surge
Posts: 595
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:58 pm
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby Ruski » Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:13 pm

So I ran the numbers, under CWF:

Opponents Score:

First Quarter: 97

Second Quarter: 96

Third Quarter: 91

Fourth Quarter: 118


Tulane Score:

First Quarter: 103

Second Quarter: 87

Third Quarter: 72

Fourth Quarter80


Whether you want to chalk it up to coaching or lack of depth there is a serious problem in 2nd half of games, especially the 4th quarter. I think the numbers are interesting and support the gut feeling I had about us under WF. Actually outscoring teams in first quarter, keeping it very very close first half and then falling apart 2nd half.



User avatar
OUG
Riptide
Posts: 2622
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:59 am
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby OUG » Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:51 pm

DfromCT wrote:Robert, we're on the same page. I think the team is well ahead of where we were with CJ and Buffet Bob, even in the season that we went to the N.O. Bowl. That team should have won 10 games minimum with the ridiculous schedule they played and playing certain decent teams without key starters.

At the same time, the areas for concern, IMHO, remain special teams (which Fritz coaches himself) and the passing game. I'd like to think we can pass the ball on many of the teams remaining on our schedule, particularly Army and Tulsa. Having watched all or parts of Army's three games, I know they don't pass well, but are quite capable of hitting a deep pass over the middle when their opponent overplays their triple option running game. They are well coached, but beaten down by injuries. If we lose tomorrow, I will be worried.

I thought we'd beat Navy and lose to Army but based upon the health of Army and the fact that it's a home game against a team whose offense we know inside and out, I think we pull out a win.

ROLL WAVE!


I think Navy is better than Army but the bigger factor is this game is at home and that game was on the road, and winning games on the road in college football is a lot tougher than people give credit for. It's just hard to give the effort and focus you need for a full 60 minutes, and the travel cuts into your routine. I know there are formulas out there that people like to apply 3-4 points or whatever, but I think when you have college teams traveling across the country and being taken out of their routine, the gap is probably considerably larger. There are several top ten teams that are about to figure out how hard it is to make that "first conference road trip of the season" tomorrow evening.

I had Navy as a lean-loss and Army as a lean-win to start the season. But if the locations were flipped I'd probably flip my expectations as well.



DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 5287
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby DfromCT » Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:08 pm

Ruski wrote:So I ran the numbers, under CWF:

Opponents Score:

First Quarter: 97

Second Quarter: 96

Third Quarter: 91

Fourth Quarter: 118


Tulane Score:

First Quarter: 103

Second Quarter: 87

Third Quarter: 72

Fourth Quarter80


Whether you want to chalk it up to coaching or lack of depth there is a serious problem in 2nd half of games, especially the 4th quarter. I think the numbers are interesting and support the gut feeling I had about us under WF. Actually outscoring teams in first quarter, keeping it very very close first half and then falling apart 2nd half.


I don't see your point being backed by your stats. Small sample, and not a huge scoring margin between the first and second halfs. We're a team without enough quality players, and depth is a concern. The difference between 150 pts in second half and 190 pts in 1st half equates to 2.7 points difference/half per game. SHOW ME, because I fail to see your statistical analysis. If you want to look at our opponents outscoring us in the second half, they do so by less than a TD. We're underdogs in most games we play. The superior programs should be taking control in the second half. The numbers your produce are surprising....because there's not a more dramatic difference. And we're underdogs in almost every game we take the field.

I'm open to a rational explanation of the point you're trying to make. I just don't see it with the numbers you posted.


" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your ongoing support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia

Ruski
Surge
Posts: 595
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:58 pm
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby Ruski » Sat Sep 23, 2017 2:38 am

DfromCT wrote:
Ruski wrote:So I ran the numbers, under CWF:

Opponents Score:

First Quarter: 97

Second Quarter: 96

Third Quarter: 91

Fourth Quarter: 118


Tulane Score:

First Quarter: 103

Second Quarter: 87

Third Quarter: 72

Fourth Quarter80


Whether you want to chalk it up to coaching or lack of depth there is a serious problem in 2nd half of games, especially the 4th quarter. I think the numbers are interesting and support the gut feeling I had about us under WF. Actually outscoring teams in first quarter, keeping it very very close first half and then falling apart 2nd half.


I don't see your point being backed by your stats. Small sample, and not a huge scoring margin between the first and second halfs. We're a team without enough quality players, and depth is a concern. The difference between 150 pts in second half and 190 pts in 1st half equates to 2.7 points difference/half per game. SHOW ME, because I fail to see your statistical analysis. If you want to look at our opponents outscoring us in the second half, they do so by less than a TD. We're underdogs in most games we play. The superior programs should be taking control in the second half. The numbers your produce are surprising....because there's not a more dramatic difference. And we're underdogs in almost every game we take the field.

I'm open to a rational explanation of the point you're trying to make. I just don't see it with the numbers you posted.


If you go quarter by quarter, (Tulane - Opponents)

1st Q: Tulane +6
2nd Q: Tulane -9
3rd Q: Tulane -19
4th Q: Tulane -38

We get worse in every quarter. 2nd half gets drastically worse.



DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 5287
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby DfromCT » Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:59 am

So we're minus 38 over 15 games, which is -2.533 points per game we're getting beat by in the fourth quarter. WOW we're getting crushed late in games.


" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your ongoing support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia

User avatar
RobertM320
Tsunami
Posts: 6072
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Destrehan, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby RobertM320 » Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:27 pm

Depth.


"ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE! HANG EM AND BANG EM! HANG EM AND BANG EM!"-- Todd Graffagnini

anEngineer
Low Tide
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 7:26 pm
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby anEngineer » Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:05 am

Ruski wrote:So I ran the numbers, under CWF:

Opponents Score:

First Quarter: 97

Second Quarter: 96

Third Quarter: 91

Fourth Quarter: 118


Tulane Score:

First Quarter: 103

Second Quarter: 87

Third Quarter: 72

Fourth Quarter80


Whether you want to chalk it up to coaching or lack of depth there is a serious problem in 2nd half of games, especially the 4th quarter. I think the numbers are interesting and support the gut feeling I had about us under WF. Actually outscoring teams in first quarter, keeping it very very close first half and then falling apart 2nd half.


This is REALLY reaching for finding something to complain about.



User avatar
RobertM320
Tsunami
Posts: 6072
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Destrehan, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby RobertM320 » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:36 am

Army scored two touchdowns in the game. In each case, we responded with a TD on the very next series. Didn't look to me like "falling apart".


"ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE! HANG EM AND BANG EM! HANG EM AND BANG EM!"-- Todd Graffagnini

User avatar
Show Me
Riptide
Posts: 2539
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:24 pm
Location: Saint Bernard
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby Show Me » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:41 am

WHY do we have two Army game threads?
Anyway I thought we’d beat Army. But my biggest concern was our lack of conditioning. The defense labored throughout the second half. We need to give them the Bowden treatment and get these guys in shape. That was my only complaint from yesterday. Looks like we are headed to a bowl if this success continues.



golfnut69
Tsunami
Posts: 7097
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:38 am
Status: Online

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby golfnut69 » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:59 am

Show Me wrote:WHY do we have two Army game threads?
Anyway I thought we’d beat Army. But my biggest concern was our lack of conditioning. The defense labored throughout the second half. We need to give them the Bowden treatment and get these guys in shape. That was my only complaint from yesterday. Looks like we are headed to a bowl if this success continues.


I am not sure you would say "out of shape" ,,,but lack of depth...I do not have the stats, but I bet Army ran twice as many plays as Tulane


Be a Hero Today.... Adopt a Shelter Pet... The Beatles once sang "Can't Buy Me Love"... I disagree, unconditional Love can be bought, for the nominal adoption fee at your local Pet Shelter !

User avatar
Show Me
Riptide
Posts: 2539
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:24 pm
Location: Saint Bernard
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby Show Me » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:36 am

golfnut69 wrote:
Show Me wrote:WHY do we have two Army game threads?
Anyway I thought we’d beat Army. But my biggest concern was our lack of conditioning. The defense labored throughout the second half. We need to give them the Bowden treatment and get these guys in shape. That was my only complaint from yesterday. Looks like we are headed to a bowl if this success continues.


I am not sure you would say "out of shape" ,,,but lack of depth...I do not have the stats, but I bet Army ran twice as many plays as Tulane

Yes maybe both. But many Tulane players either had cramps or faked them to get a injury TO. Looked bad from the stands. Yes it was hot as hell but Army seemed the better prepared team physically.



golfnut69
Tsunami
Posts: 7097
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:38 am
Status: Online

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby golfnut69 » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:11 am

Show Me wrote:
golfnut69 wrote:
Show Me wrote:WHY do we have two Army game threads?
Anyway I thought we’d beat Army. But my biggest concern was our lack of conditioning. The defense labored throughout the second half. We need to give them the Bowden treatment and get these guys in shape. That was my only complaint from yesterday. Looks like we are headed to a bowl if this success continues.


I am not sure you would say "out of shape" ,,,but lack of depth...I do not have the stats, but I bet Army ran twice as many plays as Tulane

Yes maybe both. But many Tulane players either had cramps or faked them to get a injury TO. Looked bad from the stands. Yes it was hot as hell but Army seemed the better prepared team physically.



I think it will take another two recruiting classes before we can get a true assesement of Fritz at this level...personally, I think this is the best coached team at Tulane in recent memory at least going back to the Bowden years....I do think if banks had played the entire game at Navy, Tulane would have won...I do think the WR's need to get tougher and concentrate more...Tulane refuses to take my suggestion of having the receivers catch balls shot out of a Tennis Ball Server...if you can catch them, you can catch anything....


Be a Hero Today.... Adopt a Shelter Pet... The Beatles once sang "Can't Buy Me Love"... I disagree, unconditional Love can be bought, for the nominal adoption fee at your local Pet Shelter !

anEngineer
Low Tide
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 7:26 pm
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby anEngineer » Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:59 pm

Show Me wrote:
golfnut69 wrote:
Show Me wrote:WHY do we have two Army game threads?
Anyway I thought we’d beat Army. But my biggest concern was our lack of conditioning. The defense labored throughout the second half. We need to give them the Bowden treatment and get these guys in shape. That was my only complaint from yesterday. Looks like we are headed to a bowl if this success continues.


I am not sure you would say "out of shape" ,,,but lack of depth...I do not have the stats, but I bet Army ran twice as many plays as Tulane

Yes maybe both. But many Tulane players either had cramps or faked them to get a injury TO. Looked bad from the stands. Yes it was hot as hell but Army seemed the better prepared team physically.


Those Army guys are literally trained to fight in desert warfare with full packs. You are damned right they are better prepared physically. I have no problem with that.



User avatar
RobertM320
Tsunami
Posts: 6072
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Destrehan, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby RobertM320 » Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:05 pm

anEngineer wrote:
Show Me wrote:
golfnut69 wrote:
Show Me wrote:WHY do we have two Army game threads?
Anyway I thought we’d beat Army. But my biggest concern was our lack of conditioning. The defense labored throughout the second half. We need to give them the Bowden treatment and get these guys in shape. That was my only complaint from yesterday. Looks like we are headed to a bowl if this success continues.


I am not sure you would say "out of shape" ,,,but lack of depth...I do not have the stats, but I bet Army ran twice as many plays as Tulane

Yes maybe both. But many Tulane players either had cramps or faked them to get a injury TO. Looked bad from the stands. Yes it was hot as hell but Army seemed the better prepared team physically.


Those Army guys are literally trained to fight in desert warfare with full packs. You are damned right they are better prepared physically. I have no problem with that.


That was going to be my comment as well, Engineer. I'd be pretty damn worried if these guys weren't better prepared physically. As for the conditions, it was brutally hot, and as for time of possession, Army won that 39:18 to 20:42. Now take into account that our last drive was 5:09 seconds, and you're looking at a 39 to 15 minute TOP advantage for Army prior to our last drive. Army ran 74 offensive plays to our 52. So prior to the last drive, we're looking at a 74-33 disadvantage. I think there was a legitimate reason why we cramped up.


"ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE! HANG EM AND BANG EM! HANG EM AND BANG EM!"-- Todd Graffagnini

winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 10713
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby winwave » Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:21 pm

The bottom line is that this was a good win for the program due to the manner in which we won and the fact that it gave the team a player to rally around. Thank you Mr. Banks!!!


It's the facilities stupid!

greenphantom
Swell
Posts: 1480
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 10:38 pm
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby greenphantom » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:19 pm

It was a good win but I refuse to make too big a deal about barely beating Army at home. We have a lot of work to do. Great job though by the team to gut out the win.



Wave QB
Swell
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:09 am
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby Wave QB » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:17 pm

greenphantom wrote:It was a good win but I refuse to make too big a deal about barely beating Army at home. We have a lot of work to do. Great job though by the team to gut out the win.


Agreed. This is a "I am glad we won" game. Not an upset or big win. We need to stack this W on our record and keep rolling.



winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 10713
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Re: Army Game Thread

Postby winwave » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:42 pm

Wave QB wrote:
greenphantom wrote:It was a good win but I refuse to make too big a deal about barely beating Army at home. We have a lot of work to do. Great job though by the team to gut out the win.


Agreed. This is a "I am glad we won" game. Not an upset or big win. We need to stack this W on our record and keep rolling.


We agree on that.


It's the facilities stupid!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 14 guests