I think Montys worst head coach quality is his clock management. I personally think he has done a much better job of calling plays this year, aside from the OSU game. And usually the 1st quarter of every game he, for whatever reason likes to revert back to his run run pass scheme. He still has his dumb moments of course. Like the 4 straight runs up the middle for a turnover on downs. But those instances have declined. I still think he should be gone. Clock management is a huge aspect of the head coaching job, amd hes absolutely terrible at it. Has cost us so many points over the years.
David Alexander
- Thread starter astonmartin708
- Start date
Running for a 4th and inches out of the shotgun should be viewed terribly. There has to be a situation or two where we are able to have the QB under center of we’re going to try and pound the ball on the ground for an incredibly short gain (either at the goal line or on 4th and short).
Making the RB take a snap out of the shotgun just sucks when the other team is loading the box and pressing the receivers so you can’t get a quick short throw.
Making the RB take a snap out of the shotgun just sucks when the other team is loading the box and pressing the receivers so you can’t get a quick short throw.
The number of high school QBs who have taken even a single snap under center is falling faster than the number of kids who can read cursive.
If you want to risk a fumble, or a break down on the interior line because the center is doing something unfamiliar, go right ahead.
The line to gain is largely irrelevant anymore. So is the goal line. Read Malzahn’s books. It’s about structuring plays around the rules of the game to maximize potential gains from scrimmage. Then running as many plays as possible. Scoring is inevitable. Winning is assured if your offense is more efficient than their’s.
Malzahn ran into trouble early (and again here lately) in short yardage red zone because his offense depends on choice routes and stretching the field vertically. In the red zone, that can’t happen, so safeties can cheat against the run. It’s not so much that they are loading the box as it is the LBs can key the ball and the safeties are free to key the RB and the CBs can press. You can do that without stacking. And the same is true for the Monty set. It’s not that the CB can press, it’s that only rare talent with the stature of our WRs can use talent, taught skills, and the rule book to turn those situations into high percentage throws. And both coaches know it so they look towards the run.
Don’t confuse the need to be under center with an HB or FB taking out the LB with iso who is keying the ball. That iso action typically happens in an under center pro set or I formation. But You can still get stuffed if the safety is +1. That’s why you see a lot of those fades and jump balls especially where you have two tights and show run. The first check is to see if the safety is going to cheat and help the corners or if it’s single coverage and the safety is coming down a gap to try to defeat the play after the iso has clogged up one hole. That’s what’s happening in a basic way when you say “the box is stacked”. There’s a lot of guys in the box or near it at the end line, but what they do when the ball is snaps is largely determined by what can or could happen horizontally. Due to the physical size and skill limitations of our WR, not a lot. So we run. And get stuffed. We aren’t getting stuffed because we show run out of the shotgun. We are getting stuffed because we aren’t built to pass in that situation in the college game (but we would be just fine in 4A Texas high school football where this offense was created and belongs).
6’3” Key Garrett cleaned a lot out for the running game just standing there. A lot more than he caught with his fingertips on jump balls. 5’9” Key Stokes and 5’10” Santana? Different physiques and skill sets. A lot of times inside the 10, we are getting stuffed not because our running is predictable or because we are out of the shotgun, it’s because both coaches know the physical matchups favor the defense against the pass no matter what coverage and we have no choice but to run into unfavorable numbers situations. As we discussed earlier this year, “taking what the defense gives you” as an offensive philosophy can mean two things. One good and one very bad. It can mean having a set that the defense cannot cover everything and then exploiting where they are vulnerable, but in some situations in also means only being able to run what the defense lets you run. In the constraints of a shortened field or a QB who can’t throw field side like Boomer (or a QB who can’t throw at all) you are allowed to run less and less of your play book until you are out of options to reach the line to gain. That’s what’s happening, not where or how the ball is snapped or whether the CB are pressing and preventing a quick throw.
But your instincts are correct that the defense has an advantage, but it’s not just because the box is crowded. Snapping under center with HB iso or trapping won’t uncrowd the box, or increase the percentage of success on reaching the line to gain, only stretching horizontally will. And you need personnel to do that. Remember that the next time somebody says we have great WR this year. And remember it when we aren’t signing exceptional WRs into our system because they are being asked to essentially be blockers 75% of the game unless we are forced to pass and divide up the remaining snaps with four other guys so that they only get targeted 4 or 5 times a game. But somehow, without those players, we supposedly have a winning offense despite the play calling of the man who effected the offensive structure in the first place.
We have two good ones with some potential but also with substantial limitations, due mostly to them being recruited into a flawed offensive philosophy and overly simple and short play book, but also due to their situational weaknesses that are often revealed by what you aren’t seeing, rather than the result of what you actually see.
In other offenses you could ask rhetorically chicken and egg style, “Did the run fail because the box was stacked? Or was the box stacked because the run would fail?” In our case, we know definitely it was the latter.
Last edited:
I think a lot of people pan Monty's recruiting because of the number of stars by a player's name compared the number of stars places like SMU and Tulane are bringing in. This staff has proven they can develop players to be able to contribute at the FBS level. There are some obvious deficiencies that need to be shored up, like offensive line. I'd say WR is another place we need to have better recruiting but we've got guys who can make plays. (and Monty hasn't had a ton of success recruiting his own QBs and developing them either....Smith was a transfer and Brin is seemingly the first Monty FR recruit to have the requisite skill set to run this offense).
Most on this board, the primary criticism is more in the actual game day plan and management. We've been terrible at clock management the last3-4 years. The play calling has been abysmal. And Monty's depth chart is even fair game because he put in Seth Boomer with a 3 play playbook over Davis Brin who Monty seemingly has more confidence in to throw the ball all over the yard. I think we saw the same thing last year with Tyler Smith being the back-up before 2 disastrous games with whoever was there and Smith got moved into the starter's role and things instantly got better. So the best players aren't necessarily always playing.
The play calling when Brin got into the game was something we haven't seen since Dane Evans was QB. Was it desperation or a sign of Monty's confidence in Brin's ability to run the offense the way he wants it run? If it's because Monty has that confidence in him to do that, why isn't Brin the starter?
This is the question. The offense was night and day different with Brin in the game. No delays. Get to the line and go. With Smith in we can barely get the play off within the time allotted.
So there is always the question as to whether or not a kid who is performing well in practice can adjust to game speed against an unfamiliar opponent. I get that and it's a real concern with an untested kid...that's why you rarely see a true FR QB starting game 1. You hope to get them game speed reps in mop up duty...but in those situations rarely do they get to work the entire playbook. It was apparent after the 1st series Brin was in that he is not phased by the speed of the game. His decision making was spot on most plays and you can tell he has supreme confidence in himself because he made a couple of throws into tight windows some of our previous QBs simply wouldn't make (and usually get sacked because of it).
And let's not forget, Smith is oft injured. There s hardly a play if he gets hit he doesn't come up gingerly or limping. He takes a beating back there. Part of this is his unwillingness to move the pocket early or keep the ball on the RPOs to keep the defense guessing. Brin seemed to have Tulane off balance and I can't say we ran different plays against them. We ran them at a quicker pace and urgency and that kept Tulane's defense off balance.
I disagree with some of your assessment. Spreading their laterally only helps if you’re actually willing to throw out of a shotgun snap on 4th and short or at the goal line. Few teams actually are. The reason that Navy was so dangerous back in 2016 and the years beyond was because unless they were backed up in their end zone they always acted like they had 4 downs to get 10 yards. The fact that they were able to run FB dive or QB dive / sneak and it was virtually assured to get them 1-2 yards at least made them dangerous. If you don’t stop them for at least one no gain or a loss on 1st-3rd downs you were going to be in trouble as they were nearly assured to get the 4th without much you could do about it.
The QB sneak is one of the highest success percentage plays in all of football simply because it is the one play on offense that gives the offense an advantage in those 4th and short situations. The only guys that really need to be involved in the play are the QB/ Center and maybe a guard and they’re the only ones that know when the snap will come. You take the advantages away from the defense. If they try to load the line to stop it you can just audible to something that takes advantage of their misalignment. I fully support going for it on 4th in many situations, but you have to give your personnel the best chance to succeed and if that means taking a snap under center like Dane used to then so be it. It’s not like you’re asking the QB to do a Flutie style drop kick that hasn’t been attempted in 40 years. If anything it’s something that should be in every QB’s Arsenal simply because hey will be expected to use it at the next level if they want to get there.
The fact that the opponent also has time to train to take on that QB is also something to consider. Tulane probably had no idea what types of throws our QB3 was really prepared to make or any idea of how best to pressure him into mistakes.
It was due to the score and the time left.
Similarly, running on 4th down increased the number of plays Navy could run, further increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of their offense. As i said, line to gain means little in the modern game due in large part to rules changes made for tv. They made a decision to leverage the rules into something that team could accept as a risk based on their personnel. Also discussed above.
Spend some time in football clinics. Read the books. Watch coaching videos. Read books on college sports bond finance. It’s not what you are seeing that is important. It’s what you aren’t seeing and being considered before the snap that is often way more important. And that starts with who you hire and why, what they do with the players they can get, how they prepare them, before we even start to talk about how the playbook looks and how that meshes with personnel, down and distance, conference vs non conference opponent.
We aren’t successful out of the shotgun on 4th down because the teams see it coming. Teams see it coming because we decided to hire a coach who runs a system that recruits QBs who can’t take the snap under center and that limits our playbook. It’s further limited by the choices at WR.
I know you want to prove Montgomery is a good coach regardless of the situation if this factor was different or that factors was different or we had this kind of player. The reality is that there was a fork in the road when there was a decision to hire him. As a consequence, we purchased all the vulnerabilities in his philosophy and playcalling. This is one of them.
You can’t say Montgomery would do better if he ran out of over center. It would announce we were running out of over center. And running out of over center on other plays to disguise it would break the main system down. (See the point above about maximizing the number of snaps and yards per snap). It’s one of the reasons why the few times we are overcenter, including during the Dane years, we sprint out of the loose huddle and snap quickly. Otherwise they can react and it gets stuffed. To say we should snap over center is saying you don’t like the vulnerabilities of the Montgomery offense and you agree his offense limits the potential options of schools like Tulsa with limited personnel potentials. Which has been my point all along.
the sneak is successful because it negates the +1 advantage of the safety referenced above because the QB keeps the ball and diminishes the chance of the defensive line to react to initial penetration. Advantages lost quickly in the wash. It’s part of the old single wing concept. It’s just stuck around because it’s a high percentage 1 yard gain.
Similarly, running on 4th down increased the number of plays Navy could run, further increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of their offense. As i said, line to gain means little in the modern game due in large part to rules changes made for tv. They made a decision to leverage the rules into something that team could accept as a risk based on their personnel. Also discussed above.
Spend some time in football clinics. Read the books. Watch coaching videos. Read books on college sports bond finance. It’s not what you are seeing that is important. It’s what you aren’t seeing and being considered before the snap that is often way more important. And that starts with who you hire and why, what they do with the players they can get, how they prepare them, before we even start to talk about how the playbook looks and how that meshes with personnel, down and distance, conference vs non conference opponent.
We aren’t successful out of the shotgun on 4th down because the teams see it coming. Teams see it coming because we decided to hire a coach who runs a system that recruits QBs who can’t take the snap under center and that limits our playbook. It’s further limited by the choices at WR.
I know you want to prove Montgomery is a good coach regardless of the situation if this factor was different or that factors was different or we had this kind of player. The reality is that there was a fork in the road when there was a decision to hire him. As a consequence, we purchased all the vulnerabilities in his philosophy and playcalling. This is one of them.
You can’t say Montgomery would do better if he ran out of over center. It would announce we were running out of over center. And running out of over center on other plays to disguise it would break the main system down. (See the point above about maximizing the number of snaps and yards per snap). It’s one of the reasons why the few times we are overcenter, including during the Dane years, we sprint out of the loose huddle and snap quickly. Otherwise they can react and it gets stuffed. To say we should snap over center is saying you don’t like the vulnerabilities of the Montgomery offense and you agree his offense limits the potential options of schools like Tulsa with limited personnel potentials. Which has been my point all along.
Last edited:
See above. Preparing for him will definitely help teams. But the lack of prep wasn’t why he was successful. He was effective because he could run. He was effective because he could throw field side, unlike QB2. Do Tulane was on their heels defending more of the field than against Smith and certainly Boomer. Not only did that loosen up running lanes, it prevented the high safety from keying the ball. So they were no longer +1 against the run on that side. That’s why the offense, especially the running game ran so much better when Dane would run a couple of keepers.
Think back to the touchdown. As I recall, they were running quarters out of a 4-2 set with a true nickel and not a hybrid to deal with his arm with a MLB delayed rush. Brin looked deep, saw that was covered and evaded and ran first into the opening created underneath by the quarter drop then had the athleticism to evade the Mike and get to the flag. The kid knows the game.
Last edited:
This is the philosophy of Josh McDaniels' offense and why the QB knows where to throw the ball before the ball is snapped and exactly where his mismatches are. In the AFC Championship game 2 seasons ago, Brady threw a 35 yd pass to Gronk when he lined up wide and Eric Berry set up with inside leverage. On another play and look, Berry lined up outside and Brady hit Gronk on the slant. I was at the game and you don't necessarily see that as a fan right away. I came back and watched the DVR version and Tony Romo saw the same things Brady saw and called out the plays before the ball was snapped. Romo is great at seeing that. I think it was Luginbill in the SMU game that kept talking about us in 11 personnel keeping SMU off balance on D because we could run or throw from it where you don't really have those same options running 10 personnel. I think he was also talking about whether or not it was going to be a run or pass based on the positioning of the OLBs. Were they between the tackles, if so, it's a pass play. Are they lined up outside the tackles? If yes, it's a run play. It seems simple and Huffy has talked about/complained about the simplicity for a couple of years now. If it's that simple, why isn't Monty just calling the formation in and letting Smith make the determination at the line instead of the 20 second process of always trying to get the D to jump and then getting the actual play in. This slow down is really detrimental to the flow of the offense and has resulted in several stupid time outs needing to be taken and potential delay of games, etc. Why are we making it more complicated than it needs to be?
Did not know that about NE but it’s exactly right. I don’t watch the pros but Romo is excellent for the reasons you describe. So is Gundy when he is in the booth.
As for the delay, I’m told they are mainly looking to see if the defense breaks discipline. It can be as simple as eyes moving, where the defender places their hands, a step or two cheat over, etc. We have one of several potential plays to run out of the formation. It’s just making sure everyone see the same thing and adjusts to the right play. Smith’s passes to nowhere are examples of that type of miscommunication. If nobody sees anything it’s either the base play or time out if critical. It’s right out of junior high. It’s not that the play book isn’t written down because it’s secret. It isn’t written down because it would be five pages long.
BA replaced a former NFL player, and the only coach to win a state championship at BA in David Alexander... with ... get this.....
JOSH BLANKENSHIP. LMAO. There's something in the water supply in BA these days.
JOSH BLANKENSHIP. LMAO. There's something in the water supply in BA these days.
Whoa. His Muskogee teams were the most undisciplined high school teams that I’ve seen play. That stuff won’t fly out in BA. It probably will keep the Crosstown Showdown trophy up north for a few years though.
Brin and Grayson Boomer are going to remedy our short yardage situations. So let it be written so let it be done.
Stop. You can't go anywhere in Tulsa and hear the name of Blankenship without thinking HS football. Whether it's Bill or Joe and their coaching accomplishments or hearing Josh, Caleb, or Adam and thinking about what they were able to accomplish as players at Union. That name recognition develops connections. My guess is at best someone in BA may have asked Bill if Josh might be interested.
I will always root for Josh to succeed. He handled Burns like a Boss.. a classy Boss. He was out of Burnsey's league.
I just don’t think Josh Blankenship and David Alexander are on the same level in terms of coaching talent.
You may be right but that will be settled after a couple of years and being able to put his own mark on the team. There will be some question as to who does Josh get to be on his staff? Josh does carry some credibility and does have a playing resume that hints he could be a good coach with the right players. Again...everything comes down whether or not you have the horses to run the race which is more true in HS than anywhere else. In college at least the coach has something to say and can do something about not having the right players. Just from what I know of Josh and the family history, they all have the football IQ to be able to coach. If he has the players, BA will likely do well...but is "well" good enough for the BA admin because apparently making the 6A semis almost every year wasn't good enough for David Alexander to remain as coach.
Trust me, i know. 50+ yrs of being in the area has me well indoctrinated.
It was just more of a nepotism joke bout his tenure at Tulsa..
Next i wonder if Jenks and Union will hire little Blanks too..
That would be a hoot.. all 4 perrenial 6A powers with a Blank at the helm..
It's hard to tell what the jokes are and what aren't anymore, specifically when it comes to BB. Yes, things didn't work out at TU and yes we all wanted them to.
And while Adam may want to coach, I am pretty sure Caleb hasn't been overly ambitious about going into coaching.
I hope Josh kills it at BA (except against Union)
No offense to Josh but his history of success as a player or a coach comes nowhere near Alexander’s.
My guess is that Alexander wanted too much $$$ or something.
My guess is that Alexander wanted too much $$$ or something.
I don't think that was it. DA seemed caught off guard by the sudden turn. There's something else going on.
As for Josh, he was plenty successful as a player. Burns really screwed the pooch with him. He then goes to Eastern Washington and throws for 3300 yards. No offense to any former players who played under Burns but he didn't have a clue how an offense should work and ours didn't. We had serviceable tools in the shed...but no one let them out into the sunlight. And the supposed defensive genius couldn't stop a peewee football team.
Smith averaged slightly less yards per game this season as Gooch in 2002.
I get it but he could obviously play QB well enough to get invited to an NFL camp. The fact Burns never really gave him a shot was idiotic.
When you're doinkin' Momma Gooch, things get sideways.
There was a lot going on there on the field as well. Josh could be incredibly inconsistent. He would throw for 350 and 4 touchdowns in a single game against OSU in September and throw something like 2 TDs in all of WAC conference play. We lacked FBS talent at some of the positions on the OL and difference makers like Chadwick were being switched from TE to undersized linemen because we needed to put the best raw talent out there from a bare cupboard.
Blankenship was a statue. Gooch could move and it helped get guys open against certain defenses when the line was collapsing. You can call it a change of pace, but it was really buying an extra second for slow separating WRs to find the time and space to catch.
The problem with Gooch was that he was an athlete with marginal arm talent, not an FBS QB. And he was a lefty which some of the WRs complained about. He could fake it for a few games, but big boy DCs could isolate and exploit his weaknesses quickly. And we didn’t have the line and running game to minimize those weaknesses.
Kilian needed time to mature and get used to playing with six more guys on the field lol, but yes fair point. 2004 Kilian if available in 2002, should have been the starter.
But all in all, Josh was a proven winner and a coaches kid. Players like that know how to win and expect to win. And winning tends to follow. We lost a lot in the chaos over him not playing. He had games where didn’t help his case though. It wasn’t all Burns being incompetent.
Last edited:
^This. He was serviceable in HS but it didn't work at TU or in D1 football at all. He didn't have the arm talent to overcome the fact he was 5'9" in heels. Shorter QBs can work as we've seen with guys like Doug Flutie, Brees, and Kyler Murray if they have the arm talent. Brees isn't, nor has he ever been, terribly athletic, but he has superior arm talent and an A+ intellect. I know what Burns was trying to do...he just chose the wrong guy to hitch the wagons to and in doing so pissed off the Tulsa metro area HS football coaches
Brees found success because he’s spent his entire career on a team that was willing to build an entire offense and line around creating certain gaps and passing lanes for him to throw through and him having the discipline not to give those away, the ability to move into those lanes and then quickly release with power so that the defense cannot react and defeat the pass. He’s very very limited in what he can do, but within the offense designed for him, he is the best there ever will be. He would be a disaster on other teams. Not even a camp QB.
He was pretty successful when he came in with San Diego. You'd have a difficult time convincing people he wouldn't be successful in other places considering he's the all time leader in passing yards and 2nd in all time passing TDs
Its politics, it's always politics at BA which is why they have one state title in football and destroy the state in wrestling reaching national prominence.
You have to wrestle for your weight spot if someone else wants it. Winner stays.
With team sports individual talent can be debated based on all sorts of things. In BA they use that so the right peoples kids play.
Lancaster laid the groundwork for the success Alexander had because he broke down some of that at the elementary (yes it goes that deep) and middle school level a few years into his tenure.
He quite literally said publically I am tired of getting beat by kids who grew up across the street from my starters and are playing at Union or Jenks because we wouldn't get them playing time in middle school.
The rules and coaches changed down there and they saw less of it. Eventually that sort of stuff led to the Lancaster break up and it sounds like DA got the axe for similar stuff.
Some of these people are third generation at Broken Arrow, they aren't going to ever let go.
People use to say what Huffy did about a lil guy from Boston College too, Flutie played every where, was successful where ever he went, and his teams won.
The legends of the game were always that way. Jim Brown, Jim Thorpe, Unitas, Bobby Lane, etc they were great on the sandlot, great in high school, great in college, great as pros. Sometimes people can just play and it doesn't matter where or when you put them. Sometimes it's based on athletic talent and size, trust me Bo knows, sometimes though it's just about drive ask Jerry Rice who will never wow anyone athletically but who I would put money on in his prime against any reciever including the freak Randy "just throw it as far as you can dog" Moss.
I grew up watching Flutie play at Boston College. For years our pick up games always included an attempt to recreate the Flutie to Phelan pass. And Bo Jackson was the inspiration for Sega Football and some of the crazy moves you could do with a joystick.
As for Randy Moss, if you've ever listened to Gus Frerotte talk about his time in MN, he always talked about how freakish Moss was in both athleticism but also he had insanely large and strong hands. There were a number of MN fans who wanted Gus to remain the starter because he would literally throw the ball as far as he could and just let Moss go and get it. Culpepper wouldn't do that.
And probably the lowest average yards downfield passing completion rate and average depth of target in history as well. I don’t watch the pro game and he’s a good example why. It’s all dinks and dunks through a pre-determined gap or screen passes. He hasn’t challenged a team with his arm strength in his entire career and I’d bet thrown deep more than 5 times a game in a decade. I’ve never played QB but this is the opinion of Phil Simms, Boomer, and several others. And that opinion makes sense. He gets the business from a lot of people, and not just for his tone deaf way of dealing with teammates. He does win. So that silences us all.
Last edited:
