Brocks’ open-mindedness in bringing back the triple-option spoke volumes about the coach’s willingness to adapt.
Yet the “Brock-bone,” as ESPN commentator Shaun King anointed it, soon became a manifestation of the mentality described above. It was safe, non-dynamic, and ineffective.
One CBS commentator revealed during this year’s disastrous Army-Navy game that Brock admitted to spending only about “eight minutes” on the passing game in practice.
And it showed.
We’ll never know whether Brock would have been able to improve his system. The problems with the scheme went far beyond the athletic limitations of his players as some suggest.
Yes. Speedier halfbacks would have been wonderful. But it doesn’t matter if they never get the ball.
A quicker quarterback with a better knack for the option would have been fantastic. But it’s irrelevant if he can’t make the right reads.
A bigger, faster, stronger offensive line would be great. But even the best O-line would have problems beating nine defenders in the box, especially when you can’t stretch the field vertically with a passing game.
Army’s football players were often outplayed athletically this year, but the team was more often outcoached.
And that’s unfortunate.
From all the sources I’ve seen, Stan Brock is a good coach, and a better man. His demeanor and compassion for the Corps of Cadets and his players will undoubtedly be his greatest legacy.
When most would have passed on the job of coaching at West Point, he took it. When others would have simply spoken of the challenges his players faced every day, he volunteered to experience it himself.
He is an example of everything Army fans might have wanted in a coach except for one thing:
2 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete