I've been thinking about this for a few days now and I've come to the conclusion that the service academies may be on the cusp of a resurgence in their respective programs. With the state of college football now, with NIL and the transfer portal being a huge shift for both players and programs, Army, Navy, and the Air Force have something that no other program is likely to ever have again - development. Because of the service commitments of the players, these schools have about the highest probability of developing players over a 4-5 year period and truly having senior leadership on their programs. Compare that to every other school that is basically guaranteed maybe one year, and even then the player may opt out after 4 games to preserve a redshirt. I'm very interested to see what develops over the next 2-3 years as the first generation of NIL players exhaust their eligibility and all we are left with are players that have only known the transfer portal and NIL. I'm not saying we can expect Navy to take down Georgia in the near future, but seeing one of the service school find their way into the playoffs looks more promising now than it ever has.
Is this really unexpected from Army and Navy?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Nice thought and well said.
The military academies do not recruit for athletic ability but for appropriate characteristics for military leadership. Each cadet must play on a sports team. This means that the teams themselves normally have a broad range of competence and experience.
That having been said, the point on development you make is well understood. Much of that development is however, not necessarily directed towards the skill that applies directly to that sport.
These are the last of the true amateur football programs in the country.
For the most part yes, but they absolutely recruit for sports. I speak from direct experience.
Yeah, their football and basketball players are recruited. Can't speak for say water polo, but the rules for football and basketball players are different too as Navy will defer their service if they go pro.
Modern times, it's not even deferred active service.
They commission into the selective reserves and do drill offseason, which happened a few years back for Keenan Reynolds as a cryppie officer (probably drilled at centcom or socom in Tampastan), and Joe Cardona is a supply officer in Newport.
Baseball, too.
I tend to agree with this, with some caveats.
Haven't both Army and Navy practically lived and died by the triple option for at least the last 15 years, and in the case of Navy going back even further to at or before chinballs being their head coach? Not really sure its about transcendent QB play as much as it is about effective blocking and execution.
Yes, they hired Johnson for 2 reasons- 1. they were awful at the time and 2. He was a master at the 3-O and Navy has OL that are 6'0, 250... they can chop block- don't need to be 300 to do that.
Transcendent qb play is what makes the triple work effectively. Just look at how much better GT was with Josh Nesbitt vs without him. Same goes for navy - every year they've been good, they've had great QB play (Malcolm Perry, Kenna Reynolds).
was Nesbitt really a transcendent QB, though? I think of him more as a glorified Running Back.
The triple option works well when the blocking is good AND the primary ball handler makes good choices in the running game. Tom Brady is a transcendent QB. I don't think he could run the triple option. Nesbitt could run the triple option as good as the best of them, but he wasn't a transcendent QB.
transcendent QB <> transcendent passer. Dude touches the ball EVERY play, has to make the right read, and has to be enough of a passing threat to keep the defense honest.
Whatever you want to call it - the guy who receives the snap and reads the defense has to be good if the triple option is going to work.
sounds like "transcendent QB play" to me, which is what bar said you need for the triple option
I'm clearly on the losing end of a semantics argument
I was just trying to make a joke about how Nesbit wasn't really a Quarterback the way we think of Quarterbacks these days. He was a great runner, and could read the defense and make the right choice, but wasn't a great QB in the contemporary sense of the word (i.e. he's not a top tier passer)
Georgia Tech under Paul Johnson fucking sucked at passing by EVERY metric. Every fucking one- sucked. Many games they not attempt a fucking pass. They are the golfer that plays once a year and makes one par when he does... oh he's fucking efficient. Fuck that- they, Nesbit, every fucking QB he had sucked at passing by EVERY metric. Every one.
I saw this comment and laughed given you have a note next to your name that says GT sucks at passing.
Now tell me how you really feel...
Um, Nesbit threw for 5000 yards and 60+ TDs his Jr and sr year of high school. He was recruited to GT where they threw the ball, Paul turned him into a triple option QB. I mean Taylor Bennett who was the QB before Nesbit ran 44 times for -13 yards so its not like he was recruited for triple option.
I don't know if he's transcendent. Definitely effective, though
Parker Clements is an effective Right Tackle too.
can we talk about his efficiency, though?
Sure, he makes 1-2 strong blocks a game... so you tell me
You misspelled defective. 😆
(Yes I know you weren't serious)
Looking like these two could play back to back weeks in the conf championship game and then the traditional Army/Navy game the next week. The craziest scenario is if one of them is the highest ranked top 5 conference champions, one could potentially get a playoff berth and then lose the next week in the rematch.
By the way I am rooting for this scenario to play out....
As am I. Watching either of these two in the CFP would be something special to watch.
Looking at trends, Navy's been a pretty good program the past 20 years. Army was flat out awful- to the point they joined CUSA and then dropped out because they couldn't win. Navy has hired some quality coaches too. Keep in mind, neither team can take transfers from other schools. Neither team can pay NIL. Both do have "Prep" schools and every student at the academy is on scholarship- so their walk ons have a little carrot there. Obviously these things impact the type of athletes you can bring in. Also keep in mind, they are both still focused on academics- make no mistake. Navy football players have to take core classes like umm- engineering classes, etc. It's amazing they can win at all.
Navy is actually throwing the ball down field some this year as an added wrinkle defenses have to watch for.
Is that allowed? After 80 years they have finally discovered the forward pass?
I have always been disappointed that Air Force runs the triple option as well. They should be required to play the Air Raid Offense.
Navy QB might have 1500 or more yards by conference championship game.
1500 yards is a good season running the ball /s
I've always thought it was unfair that Army-Navy is always played on land.
Sometimes it rains.
Both teams have deployed more passing this season which forces opposing defenses to respect it. Army has 8 passing TDs which may ne a record for the last two decades. Navy has 11 passing TDs so much the same for them.
The biggest difference for both teams this season though has been defense. Navy has only allowed more than 21 points in one game. Army has only allowed more than 14 in one game and that was only 28 points.
We will get a dose of reality on Navy this week as they play Notre Dame. Army's date with Notre Dame is in three weeks. Really hoping both academies destroy the Irish.
I LLLOOOOVEEE the Notre Dame/Navy series - love it. Notre Dame never plays on Navy's campus- ever, and they are like 100-2 in the last 102 meetings. SUCH a compelling and fair series.
Ball control offense helps with scoring defense. Less opportunities for opposing offense to get points if they aren't on the field.,,but in looking it up they actually average under 30 minutes TOP so yeah their defense is definitely doing its job!