Post by Lisa Steptoe on Dec 15, 2007 9:46:09 GMT -5
From: Dibella, Fred L NF-III 6 SVS/SVBG
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:52 AM
Subject: This ain't complicated, it just takes open eyes and balls
I am a former Army Colonel and a member of the class of 1969. Our class
has the highest winning percentage of victories over Navy in all sports
in West Point history. In football, we only lost once to Navy, we had a
Sugar Bowl bid, and our HC was NCAA Coach of the Year. Incidentally, we
ran a pre-cursor to the modern-day option offense. I think we know
something about the subject of winning.
I've been writing to Superintendents, Athletic Directors, and Head
Coaches at West Point since Bob Sutton was unceremoniously fired by Rick
Greenspan in a parking lot. To me, that firing was the beginning of the
end of our treasured football program. Since then, we have slipped
steadily into the abyss, and during that slide, we proceeded to set NCAA
records for futility, ineptitude, and if you will forgive the editorial,
abject stupidity.
We are now arguably the worst Div 1A football program in America.
Please let that sink in. ARMY. 3-time National Champions. Home of
Blanchard, Davis and Dawkins. ARMY. Charged with producing
warrior-leaders of strength and courage for the United States Army. Now
the worst Div 1A football program in America.
That is the context.
Here is the message:
Through a succession of bad coaching hires, we have consistently and
stubbornly proven that ANY OFFENSE WHICH RELIES ON NFL-QUALITY TALENT AT
SKILL POSITIONS CANNOT WORK AT ARMY.
Do not tune me out yet...because you do not know what I'm about to say
and we may be ready to make a similar mistake. So listen up.
For reasons that completely escape me, we tried to cram a pro-set
offense into our limited talent pool for SIX STRAIGHT YEARS. It was
disgustingly obvious to many of us that this was horribly wrong, yet we
did it over and over and over with Berry, Ross, and now, Brock. Six
years of embarrassing loses to Navy. One year of 13 straight loses to
everyone. Yet we pressed on, somehow thinking things would improve
"with better execution".
That, of course, is not a STRAGEGY; it is rather the definition of
INSANE: Do the same thing over and over and over and expect different
results.
You must prevent that from happening a SEVENTH straight year and it is
not as simple as ensuring that Mister Brock does not return to a
pro-set. Even Mister Brock, who could have installed an option shortly
after Mister Ross quit last year....even Mister Brock, who witnessed 2
straight years of pro-set futility under Mister Ross and continued the
process as if he was blind to the results...even Mister Brock....who
disparaged Navy's option during the past year as "not the
solution".....even Mister Brock, who hired his friend Mister Absolutely
No Experience With An Option Tim Walsh...will not return to a pro-set.
He has gotten the message and he wants to keep his job.
However, that does not mean that Mister Brock will not violate the same
premise that has trashed our program for six years; again, that ANY
OFFENSE WHICH RELIES ON NFL-QUALITY TALENT AT SKILL POSITIONS CANNOT
WORK AT ARMY.
Specifically, if rumors are true that Mister Brock is considering a
SPREAD OPTION offense, then we are headed down the same path. The
spread option is very alluring, and very exciting, and very
contemporary; however, the spread option is not the triple option and
requires the same type of athletes and skills as the pro set -
PARTICULARLY AT QB AND ON THE OFFENSIVE LINE!
Why do teams run the spread option? Because they like the option-like
quality of being able to read on a running play and still have a QB who
can throw the ball as effectively and efficiently as in a pro-set
offense. But going to a spread option for Army would completely defeat
one of the main purposes of going to the option in the first place - our
inability to recruit an NFL-quality QB. You still need the same level
(or perhaps even HIGHER level) of talent at QB as you do in the pro set
to run the spread option. Furthermore, our O-Line cannot man up on the
D-Lines we face and hold blocks for the extended time necessary to run
spread option plays. That is one of the most important advantages of
the triple option: offensive lines just need to execute cut blocks and
hold them for a fraction of the time needed in the pro set or spread
option. In the triple option the fullback has the ball and is PAST the
defensive line about the time the RB gets to the line in the pro-set or
spread. When D-Lines can stand our guys up and read a (long-developing)
play - they can make that play because they are typically bigger and
stronger and faster than our guys. However, if they must tackle the FB
every time because they don't have the time to read the play before the
FB is on them right now, it gives us a numbers advantage on the
perimeter for the QB or RB.
A spread option is good sounding logic, but it is not good, sound logic.
Contrarily, what is wrong with doing what Jim Young did in his second
year??? Specifically, he trashed the pro-set and he adopted a
fundamental triple option. Army enjoyed IMMEDIATE AND PROLONGED
SUCCESS. He found athletes on his roster to run the offense at QB, just
like we could have done last year and like we can do next year. Not a
problem. Plenty of guys available.
Brock has an identical opportunity model, and that would be to simply
adopt Navy's (updated) triple option. Why do all our failures seem to
arise from Head Coaches who want to put their personal stamp on our
program? Navy's triple option has piled up yards and points and eaten
clock against everyone they play. What part of that is wrong for us??!!
We recruit the same type of athletes. We have the same strength of
schedule. I ask again, WHAT PART OF THAT IS WRONG FOR US???
The lunacy of our prolonged failure is that the solution has been in
front of our face the entire time. Frankly, had Bob Sutton been able to
update and refresh his option every year, in the model of Fisher DeBerry
or Paul Johnson, he would still be our Head Coach and we never would
have gone to the dark side. But he didn't and he's gone.
So now,
Have you had enough of these Head Coaches who are trying to invent their
own wheel at Army?
Have you had enough experiments?
Have you had enough loses to Navy, AF, and everyone else?
Enough embarrassment, enough futility, enough d**n frustration???
If the answer is yes, then you get Mister Brock aside and you direct him
to adopt A PROVEN SERVICE ACADEMY OFFENSIVE SCHEME.
No "seminar" or "retreat", or "study group" necessary.
Just do what is working in Annapolis, for chrissake.
Dibella
'69
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:52 AM
Subject: This ain't complicated, it just takes open eyes and balls
I am a former Army Colonel and a member of the class of 1969. Our class
has the highest winning percentage of victories over Navy in all sports
in West Point history. In football, we only lost once to Navy, we had a
Sugar Bowl bid, and our HC was NCAA Coach of the Year. Incidentally, we
ran a pre-cursor to the modern-day option offense. I think we know
something about the subject of winning.
I've been writing to Superintendents, Athletic Directors, and Head
Coaches at West Point since Bob Sutton was unceremoniously fired by Rick
Greenspan in a parking lot. To me, that firing was the beginning of the
end of our treasured football program. Since then, we have slipped
steadily into the abyss, and during that slide, we proceeded to set NCAA
records for futility, ineptitude, and if you will forgive the editorial,
abject stupidity.
We are now arguably the worst Div 1A football program in America.
Please let that sink in. ARMY. 3-time National Champions. Home of
Blanchard, Davis and Dawkins. ARMY. Charged with producing
warrior-leaders of strength and courage for the United States Army. Now
the worst Div 1A football program in America.
That is the context.
Here is the message:
Through a succession of bad coaching hires, we have consistently and
stubbornly proven that ANY OFFENSE WHICH RELIES ON NFL-QUALITY TALENT AT
SKILL POSITIONS CANNOT WORK AT ARMY.
Do not tune me out yet...because you do not know what I'm about to say
and we may be ready to make a similar mistake. So listen up.
For reasons that completely escape me, we tried to cram a pro-set
offense into our limited talent pool for SIX STRAIGHT YEARS. It was
disgustingly obvious to many of us that this was horribly wrong, yet we
did it over and over and over with Berry, Ross, and now, Brock. Six
years of embarrassing loses to Navy. One year of 13 straight loses to
everyone. Yet we pressed on, somehow thinking things would improve
"with better execution".
That, of course, is not a STRAGEGY; it is rather the definition of
INSANE: Do the same thing over and over and over and expect different
results.
You must prevent that from happening a SEVENTH straight year and it is
not as simple as ensuring that Mister Brock does not return to a
pro-set. Even Mister Brock, who could have installed an option shortly
after Mister Ross quit last year....even Mister Brock, who witnessed 2
straight years of pro-set futility under Mister Ross and continued the
process as if he was blind to the results...even Mister Brock....who
disparaged Navy's option during the past year as "not the
solution".....even Mister Brock, who hired his friend Mister Absolutely
No Experience With An Option Tim Walsh...will not return to a pro-set.
He has gotten the message and he wants to keep his job.
However, that does not mean that Mister Brock will not violate the same
premise that has trashed our program for six years; again, that ANY
OFFENSE WHICH RELIES ON NFL-QUALITY TALENT AT SKILL POSITIONS CANNOT
WORK AT ARMY.
Specifically, if rumors are true that Mister Brock is considering a
SPREAD OPTION offense, then we are headed down the same path. The
spread option is very alluring, and very exciting, and very
contemporary; however, the spread option is not the triple option and
requires the same type of athletes and skills as the pro set -
PARTICULARLY AT QB AND ON THE OFFENSIVE LINE!
Why do teams run the spread option? Because they like the option-like
quality of being able to read on a running play and still have a QB who
can throw the ball as effectively and efficiently as in a pro-set
offense. But going to a spread option for Army would completely defeat
one of the main purposes of going to the option in the first place - our
inability to recruit an NFL-quality QB. You still need the same level
(or perhaps even HIGHER level) of talent at QB as you do in the pro set
to run the spread option. Furthermore, our O-Line cannot man up on the
D-Lines we face and hold blocks for the extended time necessary to run
spread option plays. That is one of the most important advantages of
the triple option: offensive lines just need to execute cut blocks and
hold them for a fraction of the time needed in the pro set or spread
option. In the triple option the fullback has the ball and is PAST the
defensive line about the time the RB gets to the line in the pro-set or
spread. When D-Lines can stand our guys up and read a (long-developing)
play - they can make that play because they are typically bigger and
stronger and faster than our guys. However, if they must tackle the FB
every time because they don't have the time to read the play before the
FB is on them right now, it gives us a numbers advantage on the
perimeter for the QB or RB.
A spread option is good sounding logic, but it is not good, sound logic.
Contrarily, what is wrong with doing what Jim Young did in his second
year??? Specifically, he trashed the pro-set and he adopted a
fundamental triple option. Army enjoyed IMMEDIATE AND PROLONGED
SUCCESS. He found athletes on his roster to run the offense at QB, just
like we could have done last year and like we can do next year. Not a
problem. Plenty of guys available.
Brock has an identical opportunity model, and that would be to simply
adopt Navy's (updated) triple option. Why do all our failures seem to
arise from Head Coaches who want to put their personal stamp on our
program? Navy's triple option has piled up yards and points and eaten
clock against everyone they play. What part of that is wrong for us??!!
We recruit the same type of athletes. We have the same strength of
schedule. I ask again, WHAT PART OF THAT IS WRONG FOR US???
The lunacy of our prolonged failure is that the solution has been in
front of our face the entire time. Frankly, had Bob Sutton been able to
update and refresh his option every year, in the model of Fisher DeBerry
or Paul Johnson, he would still be our Head Coach and we never would
have gone to the dark side. But he didn't and he's gone.
So now,
Have you had enough of these Head Coaches who are trying to invent their
own wheel at Army?
Have you had enough experiments?
Have you had enough loses to Navy, AF, and everyone else?
Enough embarrassment, enough futility, enough d**n frustration???
If the answer is yes, then you get Mister Brock aside and you direct him
to adopt A PROVEN SERVICE ACADEMY OFFENSIVE SCHEME.
No "seminar" or "retreat", or "study group" necessary.
Just do what is working in Annapolis, for chrissake.
Dibella
'69