[fullmetal]

So, given that we are supposedly focusing on Army, anyone want to write a primer on what makes Army's offense special?  Why was our game against them last year so mediocre?  Do they do anything special on defense akin to their unique offense?

Army runs a triple option offense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_option), which is designed around speed and misdirection.  This is a wise decision for them as they cannot count on power/strength to run traditional schemes due to height/weight restrictions for cadets.  It's a fairly unique offensive scheme (all three FBS service academies run this scheme for the same reason), and specific preparation for it isn't helpful for defending the rest of college football's offenses, much in the way that Oregon doesn't see a power running game like Stanford's very often.

Army's defense doesn't do anything special as far as I know.  They're smaller, perhaps quicker, and thus will have to rely on discipline and speed to deal with Stanford's power up front and blocking. 

As most smaller teams do, Army tends to practice cut blocks, where a smaller player blocks a larger player by hitting them in the legs, usually around the knees, in order to knock them down (or trip them).  This can be dangerous for the larger players, and some larger players will play hesitantly to protect their legs when they know cut blocking is a possibility.  Cut blocking can be employed on both sides of the ball.

Last year, Shaw stuck with a very vanilla playbook against Army (iirc) because he believed Stanford could beat Army straight up on power and athleticism without needing to show too much of the playbook before the bulk of the season.  Army therefore was in a decent position to defend and attack knowing that there wouldn't be too much misdirection.  I think the scoreboard and progression of the game bore that out.


Here's a brief rundown on Army's scheme from the view of a Boston College fan:
http://www.bcinterruption.com/boston-col...13-preview

[fullmetal]

So, given that we are supposedly focusing on Army, anyone want to write a primer on what makes Army's offense special?  Why was our game against them last year so mediocre?  Do they do anything special on defense akin to their unique offense?

Army runs a triple option offense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_option), which is designed around speed and misdirection.  This is a wise decision for them as they cannot count on power/strength to run traditional schemes due to height/weight restrictions for cadets.  It's a fairly unique offensive scheme (all three FBS service academies run this scheme for the same reason), and specific preparation for it isn't helpful for defending the rest of college football's offenses, much in the way that Oregon doesn't see a power running game like Stanford's very often.

Army's defense doesn't do anything special as far as I know.  They're smaller, perhaps quicker, and thus will have to rely on discipline and speed to deal with Stanford's power up front and blocking. 

As most smaller teams do, Army tends to practice cut blocks, where a smaller player blocks a larger player by hitting them in the legs, usually around the knees, in order to knock them down (or trip them).  This can be dangerous for the larger players, and some larger players will play hesitantly to protect their legs when they know cut blocking is a possibility.  Cut blocking can be employed on both sides of the ball.

Last year, Shaw stuck with a very vanilla playbook against Army (iirc) because he believed Stanford could beat Army straight up on power and athleticism without needing to show too much of the playbook before the bulk of the season.  Army therefore was in a decent position to defend and attack knowing that there wouldn't be too much misdirection.  I think the scoreboard and progression of the game bore that out.


Here's a brief rundown on Army's scheme from the view of a Boston College fan:
http://www.bcinterruption.com/boston-col...13-preview