Best In-Game Coach in NCAAF

#32
#32
I hate BYU but I always thought Bronco Mendenhall was a great in game coach. Definitely got the most out of less talented players.
 
#33
#33
Oh, Paul Johnson and Ken Niumatalolo are two others who get a lot out of a limited roster. Both associated with Navy (one currently, the other previously), both take advantage of the wishbone and option football, and both undoubtedly know how to coach a game very well and make the most of what they have.
 
#34
#34
VFL-82-JP said:
Oh, Paul Johnson and Ken Niumatalolo are two others who get a lot out of a limited roster. Both associated with Navy (one currently, the other previously), both take advantage of the wishbone and option football, and both undoubtedly know how to coach a game very well and make the most of what they have.
Click to expand...

They know one gimmicky offense that works well against average opponents. Are you serious Clarke?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#35
#35
volfanbill said:
They know one gimmicky offense that works well against average opponents. Are you serious Clarke?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm dead serious. Even using an offense most others don't, you don't win as many games as Navy and Ga Tech (often) do without knowing how to coach on the field.

If you need a valid point of comparison, look no farther than Army. Same quality of players, same general offensive scheme. Far fewer wins. The difference is in the quality of the coaches. Both Johnson and Niumatalolo know how to make lemonade.

If you can't see that, you haven't watched enough service academy football over the years.
 
Last edited:
#36
#36
VFL-82-JP said:
Yes, I'm dead serious. Even using an offense most others don't, you don't win as many games as Navy and Ga Tech (often) do without knowing how to coach on the field.

If you need a valid point of comparison, look no farther than Army. Same quality of players, same general offensive scheme. Far fewer wins. The difference is in the quality of the coaches. Both Johnson and Niumatalolo know how to make lemonade.

If you can't see that, you haven't watched enough service academy football over the years.
Click to expand...

I wonder about the "same quality of players" statement.

Circa about 1999 when I was at Ft. Benning at Airborne school, there were some West Point guys going through with us. One of them was a football player. We actually had this discussion and his thesis is that Army will always be handicapped compared to other services due to the fact that Army keeps strict size/weight requirements where other services give waivers for those requirements for football players. There was also a discussion about how the Army's policy was to not allow waivers for players to go pro, whereas the Navy/AF had told recruits that might be an option should it be presented.

That makes sense, if true. I was 6'2'' and between 215 and 220, about 10-12% body fat. I usually maxed out the APFT (or close to it), could bench press 315, ran 5 miles a day, had a 34" waist and 46" chest...and could barely pass the height/weight and tape requirement. There is no way a serious offensive or defensive lineman could make weight/tape in that system.
 
Last edited:
#37
#37
daj2576 said:
I wonder about the "same quality of players" statement.

Circa about 1999 when I was at Ft. Benning at Airborne school, there were some West Point guys going through with us. One of them was a football player. We actually had this discussion and his thesis is that Army will always be handicapped compared to other services due to the fact that Army keeps strict size/weight requirements where other services give waivers for those requirements for football players. There was also a discussion about how the Army's policy was to not allow waivers for players to go pro, whereas the Navy/AF had told recruits that might be an option should it be presented.

That makes sense, if true. I was 6'2'' and between 215 and 220, about 10-12% body fat. I usually maxed out the APFT (or close to it), could bench press 315, ran 5 miles a day, had a 34" waist and 46" chest...and could barely pass the height/weight and tape requirement. There is no way a serious offensive or defensive lineman could make weight/tape in that system.
Click to expand...

Yeah, DAJ, I've heard the same things said many times over the years, including back when I was there and had a roommate who was a starting LB on the team.

The thing is, Army did allow waivers for ht/wt, and even elements of the PT test. Do they no longer? Don't know, possibly not, but can't imagine why they'd change that policy.

But one thing your buddy at Airborne school got exactly right: Army is a LOT stricter about meeting service requirements after graduation. None of this, "we'll assign you to the nearest Naval Supply Depot and let you "go to work" by calling in every day in the morning. Navy gave David Robinson that kind of deal after graduation, and Napoleon McCullum, too. Probably Keenan Reynolds was offered a similar deal, though I don't know that.

Army graduates never got any chances like that, I don't think.

But that never affected where a cadet or midshipman decided to go to school...because you don't go to ANY of the service academies if you think you have a real shot at the NFL. Those guys all play just for the love of the game, and once in a while one comes along who is that good. But that certainly doesn't affect recruitment, or their relative strength as athletes. It's simply far too small a piece of the equation, team for team.
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
VFL-82-JP said:
Yeah, DAJ, I've heard the same things said many times over the years, including back when I was there and had a roommate who was a starting LB on the team.

The thing is, Army did allow waivers for ht/wt, and even elements of the PT test. Do they no longer? Don't know, possibly not, but can't imagine why they'd change that policy.

But one thing your buddy at Airborne school got exactly right: Army is a LOT stricter about meeting service requirements after graduation. None of this, "we'll assign you to the nearest Naval Supply Depot and let you "go to work" by calling in every day in the morning. Navy gave David Robinson that kind of deal after graduation, and Napoleon McCullum, too. Probably Keenan Reynolds was offered a similar deal, though I don't know that.

Army graduates never got any chances like that, I don't think.

But that never affected where a cadet or midshipman decided to go to school...because you don't go to ANY of the service academies if you think you have a real shot at the NFL. Those guys all play just for the love of the game, and once in a while one comes along who is that good. But that certainly doesn't affect recruitment, or their relative strength as athletes. It's simply far too small a piece of the equation, team for team.
Click to expand...

Interesting read.

Should Military Athletes Get Special Treatment? - WSJ

I wasn't making the point that there are lots of athletes at Army with chances to go pro, just that if you had a shot of going pro and wanted to go to an Academy that the point wasn't the place to go. And that is based only on anecdotes from cadets.
 
#39
#39
#40
#40
daj2576 said:
I wasn't making the point that there are lots of athletes at Army with chances to go pro, just that if you had a shot of going pro and wanted to go to an Academy that the point wasn't the place to go. And that is based only on anecdotes from cadets.
Click to expand...

Yeah, see, that's just it. If there are any young men who have a shot of going pro, they don't go to ANY of the academies. The (very) rare exception to that rule is such a drop in the bucket that it doesn't count as a significant difference in the talent levels of the programs.

We were talking about "same quality of players," right? For all intents and purposes, the academies all have the same quality of talent to form a team from.


p.s. This is exactly why the service academies are not the behemoths of college athletics that they were in the middle of last century. The extreme inflation in paydays for pro athletes made it a MUCH bigger decision to go to the "right school" if you had that kind of potential. And so the academies fell by the way side. Kind of ironic, when you think about it.
 
Last edited:
#41
#41
VFL-82-JP said:
Yeah, see, that's just it. If there are any young men who have a shot of going pro, they don't go to ANY of the academies. The (very) rare exception to that rule is such a drop in the bucket that it doesn't count as a significant difference in the talent levels of the programs.

We were talking about "same quality of players," right? For all intents and purposes, the academies all have the same quality of talent to form a team from.


p.s. This is exactly why the service academies are not the behemoths of college athletics that they were in the middle of last century. The extreme inflation in paydays for pro athletes made it a MUCH bigger decision to go to the "right school" if you had that kind of potential. And so the academies fell by the way side. Kind of ironic, when you think about it.
Click to expand...

I'm not actually disagreeing with your assessment, just that perhaps Army has a slight handicap over a team like Navy for the above stated reasons.

It's interesting that I hadn't looked at the numbers, but here are the yearly averages in descending time order from 2016 to 2010.

And, I might have made an initial incorrect assumption and that you, Sir, are more correct than I.

Army: 95.5; 103.75; 110.5; 116.0; 117.3; 114.0; 113.5

AFA: 99; 101.75; 100; 102.8; 107; 105.5; 109

Navy: 103.75; 101.25; 99; 99.3; 104.8; 112.8; 117.3
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top