Navy (ML) v. Ohio State

[Joe_Shabadoo]

I will preface a bias in that I am practitioner of the flexbone offense, ableit as a high school coordinator. Such a bias, though, stems from an unwavering commitment to the systematic philosophy in obviating huge talent gaps.

Yes, a 5-star, 6’6’’, 280-lb. player is ostensibly more difficult to play against than the average D-1 player, but Paul Johnson’s heretofore protégés run this system because if the quarterback can read his way out at least 70% of the time, a talent disparity is rendered moot. Defensive linemen do not have to be blocked at all play-side if Navy (or any flexbone team’s) most sublime play is run: triple-midline. Across either a 3 or 4-man surface, if triple-midline is run, one interior lineman may only have to be blocked at all.

Now, this dictates a quarterback reading from a (2i) DT out then to the DE back-to-back. It is not an easy read even for players in their fifth year of this system.

The reason that I’m so excited for a potential upset here is that Keenan Reynolds, through my sad amounts of film study, is probably the best under-center, triple-option quarterback that I’ve seen since Kaipo Enhada.

He gets it. He reps it with confidence. He knows that his immediate coach (Ivin Jasper) will always help him out.

That brings me to Coach Jasper, who in my opinion is premiere in all of flexbone praxis. That may not sound really impressive given the sample size of teams, but it’s quite easy to mess this system up quickly and get behind the count, not sticking to the "if-then"methodology even in long-yardage situations where the offense is supposedly off schedule.

I’ve watched countless hours of tape of Paul Johnson, Ivin Jasper, Jeff Monken, Rich Ellerson, and Mike Houston-run offenses. Jasper is the best mind in this respective dynamic. He knows how to achieve the full utility and economy of a team that focuses its offense on such a strategy. He knows just how to return to running triple/triple-midline when there are cloudy/”squat” reads, athletic mismatches against his personnel, and, most importantly, by adjusting blocking assignments play-to-play with beautifully designed tags between the offensive line (particularly the tackles), A-backs, and wide receivers.

I was curious to see how he would respond with Reynolds in the full swing of things against Notre Dame last season, needing to right the ship after 2012’s abortion against The Irish.

I like to grade out flex-teams based on their ineffective offensive plays, and then watch how their respective play-callers react throughout the remainder of a game. Trey Miller was not the man for the job in 2012, but maybe Reynolds was not either at the time in Dublin. Last year, though, he and Coach Jasper executed a masterful gameplan that saw a “pure” gameplan: under 10 passes; triple >40% called plays; zone dive only called when the Mike linebacker scrapes too hard for the pitch when running an accompanying “blood” aimed at taking the B-back and QB away immediately; zone-option when the defense does not match perimeter blockers; rocket toss only called when #2 in the count blitzes for run support; unbalanced fronts only called to have the defense declare strength when running 8-man or 50 fronts.

Navy was back to their 2007/’09/’10 form against Notre Dame defense last season. And I have every bit of confidence that they can scare the shit out of Chris Ash and Luke Fickell this season. As I said, the purpose, utility, and sheer economics of personnel management, recruiting, gameplanning, and talent equalization is only achieved from the flexbone by adherence in scheming to run the veer (standard triple or triple-midline) EVERY PLAY. The constraint plays off of the triple-option are not to be run willy-nilly; they are purposeful. And Coach Jasper is the best at practicing this philosophy.

I believe Reynolds is the likely the best player to ever helm this attack. And I believe this could be Navy’s best offense line ever.

So, yeah, lots of hoo-haw about the Midshipmen offense.


I know Buddy Green is going to run his extreme take on bend-don’t-break, 3-4 defense against the Buckeye offense. And I know it’s not going to look pretty at all.

All that they need, though, even seen in outlier sets of statistical defensive beat-downs (see: v. Notre Dame (’09, ’13), South Carolina (’11), San Jose State (’13)), is the increased chance of turnover/errant plays incumbent on steady execution against a team like Navy that can easily rattle opposing offenses eager to maintain a tit-for-tat scoring response against such an irritating offense.

For what it’s worth (although I’ve said “best” a few times now), Navy is also fielding perhaps its “best” secondary ever as well. At least on paper. Quarters/man-under to pattern-matching from cloud coverage (all 4 defensive backs at 8-10 yards) is the name of the game for Green’s defense. If the field-side players can stay like this formationally, being able to match tO.S.U. half of the time in space then this approach could hold just enough for the potential upset here.


That’s my opinion on the game.

It comes back to my preface: bias; it will lead me to play Navy moneyline here. I hope to get [+1,500]-plus by game time.

I’m gambling, of course, but this game has all of the makings of one of those “what-the-penetrate, moneyline-parlay-teaser-busting” plays. Couple that with Utah State (+220) or so, and you've got a tasty, tasty parlay.


Thank you for your time.

[BigdaddyQH]

Nice write-up but you have no chance in Hades of Navy winning this game. Your problem, like many others in here, is simple. You do not look at both sides of the coin. Navy does not have personnel as talented as Ohio State's personnel. It is that simple. Ohio State's offense will simply manhandle Navy's D-line. On the other side of the ball, Ohio State may have the best Defensive line in the game. Ohio State simply has more talent than Navy does. Ohio State opened up at -14 for a reason. It makes no sense to look at your team only. You had better look at the opposition too.

[survive]

Great write up, thanks. Will likely be on navy +19

[BigdaddyQH]

Great write up, thanks. Will likely be on navy +19

Navy +19? The line in Vegas is 14. Where do you see +19, and more importantly, do you have an account at this book?

[SamDiamond]

Great write up.

But oh, do I disagree.

Navy was held to 7 points by Western Kentucky last year, and Duke did the same thing to Navy. If Ohio State is even remotely disciplined in their approach, they will dominate Navy.

And, while Navy's offense is impressive... they still have to play defense. And, I can't bet on a team that finished 112th out of 125 teams in defensive efficiency, and I don't care if this is the most talented Navy secondary... as far as secondaries go, they still wouldn't rank in the top 10 in the Big 10.

Navy struggles with athletic qbs, and Miller will put all kinds of pressure on them.

I would not be surprised if Navy covered this game, but I can't see them winning it.

[BatemanPatrickl]

Not going to be close. Ohio State rolls here.

[survive]

Navy +19? The line in Vegas is 14. Where do you see +19, and more importantly, do you have an account at this book?

I'm seeing +19 on 5 dimes

[BigdaddyQH]

I'm seeing +19 on 5 dimes

Thanks for the info. That may not be a bad wager. Just do not take Navy S/U.

[Joe_Shabadoo]

I indeed have looked at the opposition, in depth. I just felt it practical, at this point, to omit further writing of rather common knowledge of Buckeye personnel, depth, utility, etc. that you, I, and others assuredly already know.

Bosa, Spence, Bennett, et al. won't be able to show how dominant they are if Navy can get Heap and Gaston to impede the linebackers designated as "in" the play-side tackle. That's all they need.

Now, if they get a yard or two on any given play and Navy starts play-calling like Georgia Tech (e.g., constraint plays called without rhyme or reason), then they're fvcked, because they'll be just another 1-star coalition getting curb-stomped out there.

[SamDiamond]

I indeed have looked at the opposition, in depth. I just felt it practical, at this point, to omit further writing of rather common knowledge of Buckeye personnel, depth, utility, etc. that you, I, and others assuredly already know.

Bosa, Spence, Bennett, et al. won't be able to show how dominant they are if Navy can get Heap and Gaston to impede the linebackers designated as "in" the play-side tackle. That's all they need.

Now, if they get a yard or two on any given play and Navy starts play-calling like Georgia Tech (e.g., constraint plays called without rhyme or reason), then they're fvcked, because they'll be just another 1-star coalition getting curb-stomped out there.

Spence is not playing, he's suspended.

Nonetheless, you are making it seem as though what Ohio State does is irrelevant. "If" is not something I like to bet on. If Ohio State turns it over, If Heap and Gaston can get on the LBs... those are big ifs.

Western Kentucky and Duke were able to frustrate Navy last year, I'm pretty sure Ohio State has the caliber of athletes to do the same.

Listen, I would LOVE Navy to kick Ohio State's head in. I would love to see that. But I think a ML win is a long shot.

I hope I am the one wrong here.

[Joe_Shabadoo]

Duke was a strange bird last year, yes. Not bad enough to be considered an outlier; not bad enough considering Duke's improvement in per-play efficacy that began to rise last season.

Though, Keenan Reynolds was knocked out of the game early against Western Kentucky last season, so, to speak again of his importance, it goes without saying that John Hendrick was never going to be able to execute this offense given the situation. The Hilltoppers were running an inverted, flexed 50-front where the nose tackle and ILBs were swapping assignments, and aligning together a few yards off of the ball. Along with the safeties aligning at 6 yards, Navy was doomed. Hendrick could barely make a triple-midline read against a 4-3 front with a WIDE 3-technique, let alone this type of exaggerated front that Rich Ellerson used against the Middies during his time at Army.

Beyond the base plays, Hendrick neither could exploit the safeties disregarding the threat of the A-backs threatening the seam. Had Reynolds not been injured, this tactic would have resulted in a passing stat-line that would have made Mike Leach look like he was having fun.

Man-to-man, you guys are right with dismissing the potential here based on blue-chip talent, but the flexbone is the tail that'll wag the dog here if they're to pull it out. tO.S.U. will get theirs on offense undoubtedly; I think that Jasper/Reynolds will have Buckeye defenders playing in two-point stances along the D-line and keep the pressure on, possession by possession.


Good luck to all with your bets this season. Let's pull in a nice ROI.

[Joe_Shabadoo]

I don't like positing on "ifs" either when handicapping in earnest. The reason I'm citing conditional statements like that, though, is that the systematic design involved with listing what I did involves an if-then methodology that places, for example, the play-side OT on the "in" or seam defender found at the 5.5 marker along the defense. If the OT is impeded by a talent differential or by the defensive design so as to allow for the unblocked defender on the pitch, then the OC (Jasper) augments the blocking tags to have the OT "slip" over the 5-technique with the guard now stemming out, or to have the A-back "load" said defender with the OT then going "tiger" to number-three in the count (either the CB in cover-2, or the safety in sky alignment).

What this mularkey all means is that the conditional, future accounts of behavior that I hypothesize are dependent on reading the defense out each play, from each position. It's not necessarily like wishing for the OT to base block the DE, which then would hopefully open up counter lead to that side, or play-action off of the resultant reaction (maybe, hopefully) to said design by the second and third defensive level afterwards.

What is conventional and subject to scrutiny is the ability and cognition of the quarterback. The flexbone is a quarterback-driven offense; we're not looking for Peyton Manning here, audibling, processing option routes, etc., we're looking for the quarterback to understand all of the aforementioned criteria.

So *if* the quarterback can do what is consistently expected according to his ability, then this magic bullet in negating a talent disparity that I write of can be approached. But it does take a remarkable physical and mental talent to achieve this. Like I said, if this isn't feasible in the slightest given the level of competition then you guys are all right in your abstention in entertaining the idea of an upset. I feel that this is possible because of Reynolds' operative ability and Coach Jasper's acumen within the confines of this system.

I just ask that you may entertain the notion of a boon to your profits, week 1, from a viable, 20-point-plus underdog. It might not be such an on-paper shot in the dark.

[Joe_Shabadoo]

Thanks for the info. That may not be a bad wager. Just do not take Navy S/U.

C'mon, you know you want to.

What could the potential payout be on a 3-team parlay with Navy and Utah State straight up, along with one's top-rated play on the spread? About 95-1?

[Night-Tripper]

C'mon, you know you want to.

What could the potential payout on a 3-team parlay with Navy and Utah State straight up, along with one's top-rated play on the spread? About 95-1?

Joe, I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for authoring one of the more enjoyable football/gambling-related reads that I've had in a while. It's been years since I've listened to debates between Texas HS coaches pertaining to the *chuck and duck* versus *ground and pound*, so reading your posts regarding the *midline* brought back many pleasant memories.

Good luck to you both on the field of play as well as in the gambling arena.

ps: Like you, I intend to play the Midshipmen both with the spread as well as the moneyline.

[SamDiamond]

I don't like positing on "ifs" either when handicapping in earnest. The reason I'm citing conditional statements like that, though, is that the systematic design involved with listing what I did involves an if-then methodology that places, for example, the play-side OT on the "in" or seam defender found at the 5.5 marker along the defense. If the OT is impeded by a talent differential or by the defensive design so as to allow for the unblocked defender on the pitch, then the OC (Jasper) augments the blocking tags to have the OT "slip" over the 5-technique with the guard now stemming out, or to have the A-back "load" said defender with the OT then going "tiger" to number-three in the count (either the CB in cover-2, or the safety in sky alignment).

What this mularkey all means is that the conditional, future accounts of behavior that I hypothesize are dependent on reading the defense out each play, from each position. It's not necessarily like wishing for the OT to base block the DE, which then would hopefully open up counter lead to that side, or play-action off of the resultant reaction (maybe, hopefully) to said design by the second and third defensive level afterwards.

What is conventional and subject to scrutiny is the ability and cognition of the quarterback. The flexbone is a quarterback-driven offense; we're not looking for Peyton Manning here, audibling, processing option routes, etc., we're looking for the quarterback to understand all of the aforementioned criteria.

So *if* the quarterback can do what is consistently expected according to his ability, then this magic bullet in negating a talent disparity that I write of can be approached. But it does take a remarkable physical and mental talent to achieve this. Like I said, if this isn't feasible in the slightest given the level of competition then you guys are all right in your abstention in entertaining the idea of an upset. I feel that this is possible because of Reynolds' operative ability and Coach Jasper's acumen within the confines of this system.

I just ask that you may entertain the notion of a boon to your profits, week 1, from a viable, 20-point-plus underdog. It might not be such an on-paper shot in the dark.

I will gladly welcome any dog of 20 points winning straight up.

But I think this is going to be a beat down.

Like I said previously, I hope I am wrong.

[Night-Tripper]

Navy +19? The line in Vegas is 14. Where do you see +19, and more importantly, do you have an account at this book?

Ohio State is only -14 Navy in Las Vegas?

Really?

Guess what?

You're wrong... AGAIN!

[SamDiamond]

And Joe, once again, great thread.

Some good football discussion.

[jc1123]

On june 27, I placed a bet backing OHIO STATE -14.5 at an las vegas casino

Today that same casino has OHIO STATE -19.5

[BigdaddyQH]

Ohio State is only -14 Navy in Las Vegas?

Really?

Guess what?

You're wrong... AGAIN!

Go play with your girl friend Conan. Then you two can disappear again near the end of the season after you lose all of your money. Want to get your arse kicked again like last year boy? You are nothing more than a big loser. Now go f**k off you sissy.

[Isaiah]

Outstanding post Joe! Love reading knowledgeable and well thought out analysis of upcoming games, a rarity in a forum dominated by egotistical blowhards.

Can't bring myself to place dollars on the Navy money line but you convinced me to take the Middies plus the points.

All the best to you, I'll be rooting for you.

[GT21Megatron]

The only thing I don't like about the ML here is that OSU will have ample time to prepare which is never good for these types of offenses. Look up their records playing a team coming off a bye week and in bowl games. It's not good at all. I do think Navy can get first downs and control the clock. I love these teams getting points like this and Reynolds outside of Nesbit is probably the best triple option QB I've seen.

[Joe_Shabadoo]

The only thing I don't like about the ML here is that OSU will have ample time to prepare which is never good for these types of offenses. Look up their records playing a team coming off a bye week and in bowl games. It's not good at all. I do think Navy can get first downs and control the clock. I love these teams getting points like this and Reynolds outside of Nesbit is probably the best triple option QB I've seen.

The preparation-time-as-an-option-antidote probably has more to do with sportscast rhetoric. I think that coaching is key here: a flexbone OC should have his unit prepared for every front/scheme, as it's basic protocol. There are only so many ways that the offense can attack, yes, but there is only a finite number of ways that a defense can perform in switching assignments to try and confound the offense. Neither side is reinventing the wheel here.

If the quarterback simply cannot handle back-to-back reads then they're processing it like it's back to back after the snap. One cannot read it as "alright, #1. And. Then. It's --- #2." It should always be an "area read" where the QB reads the DT/DE and LB/S simultaneously; if they both crash the B-back/QB at the same time, the QB seats the ball and pitches immediately, under control. If the QB is versed in doing so, the defense cannot commit to this approach in "option destruction" because it's strategic suicide. An effective QB in this scheme is always taught to leverage pitch in this situation. If done correctly then it won't matter if they're running it against the AP All-Pro 1st-team defense -- it'll be 8-to-12-to-touchdown.

The same thing applies to the "2-1 exchange" where the EMLOS (DE/OLB) switches responsibilities with the LB/S. I've seen this singlehandedly reduce Paul Johnson's squads at Georgia Tech (even with Josh Nesbitt) to abandoning the veer in favor of predetermined play-calls for the remainder of the game because the QB just can't handle it. Then the whole thing crumbles. Don't even get me started on Vad Lee. Good luck to him and his career, but, damn, it was a travesty watching his head spin every play.

The 3-2 exchange goes along the same lines if then the QB keeps the ball and replaces the original alignment of #1. The 3-4 exchange is the responsibility of the A-back/tackle communicating with the WR, reading the safety and cornerback on the run so that the arc block is performed appropriately with what the defense is doing with the secondary on run support.

If any of these aspects aren't mastered with effective personnel and stimuli over and over again then they're fvcked.

I think that some may construe these issues as evidence of under-center triple-option being rendered obsolete with enough practice time. It usually has more to do with the talent differential not being modified when the specialty of an entire team is wasted by being ill-prepared in implementing the entire focus of their offense. They've lost the competitive equalizer, they fall behind schedule, the score gets out of hand, and they're forced to try what they just can't do.

Just as the difference with elite passers in the NFL is measured and felt along that fine line, so it goes with the elite flexbone QB. Reynolds is just a different breed.


What Navy backers will really need here is the defense playing just well enough to get about 2 punts total from Meyer, Miller, and Co.

[GT21Megatron]

The preparation-time-as-an-option-antidote probably has more to do with sportscast rhetoric. I think that coaching is key here: a flexbone OC should have his unit prepared for every front/scheme, as it's basic protocol. There are only so many ways that the offense can attack, yes, but there is only a finite number of ways that a defense can perform in switching assignments to try and confound the offense. Neither side is reinventing the wheel here.

If the quarterback simply cannot handle back-to-back reads then they're processing it like it's back to back after the snap. One cannot read it as "alright, #1. And. Then. It's --- #2." It should always be an "area read" where the QB reads the DT/DE and LB/S simultaneously; if they both crash the B-back/QB at the same time, the QB seats the ball and pitches immediately, under control. If the QB is versed in doing so, the defense cannot commit to this approach in "option destruction" because it's strategic suicide. An effective QB in this scheme is always taught to leverage pitch in this situation. If done correctly then it won't matter if they're running it against the AP All-Pro 1st-team defense -- it'll be 8-to-12-to-touchdown.

The same thing applies to the "2-1 exchange" where the EMLOS (DE/OLB) switches responsibilities with the LB/S. I've seen this singlehandedly reduce Paul Johnson's squads at Georgia Tech (even with Josh Nesbitt) to abandoning the veer in favor of predetermined play-calls for the remainder of the game because the QB just can't handle it. Then the whole thing crumbles. Don't even get me started on Vad Lee. Good luck to him and his career, but, damn, it was a travesty watching his head spin every play.

The 3-2 exchange goes along the same lines if then the QB keeps the ball and replaces the original alignment of #1. The 3-4 exchange is the responsibility of the A-back/tackle communicating with the WR, reading the safety and cornerback on the run so that the arc block is performed appropriately with what the defense is doing with the secondary on run support.

If any of these aspects aren't mastered with effective personnel and stimuli over and over again then they're fvcked.

I think that some may construe these issues as evidence of under-center triple-option being rendered obsolete with enough practice time. It usually has more to do with the talent differential not being modified when the specialty of an entire team is wasted by being ill-prepared in implementing the entire focus of their offense. They've lost the competitive equalizer, they fall behind schedule, the score gets out of hand, and they're forced to try what they just can't do.

Just as the difference with elite passers in the NFL is measured and felt along that fine line, so it goes with the elite flexbone QB. Reynolds is just a different breed.


What Navy backers will really need here is the defense playing just well enough to get about 2 punts total from Meyer, Miller, and Co.

If your on the ML your gonna need more than just two stops from that defense. Just saying

[BigdaddyQH]

C'mon, you know you want to.

What could the potential payout be on a 3-team parlay with Navy and Utah State straight up, along with one's top-rated play on the spread? About 95-1?

Obviously you lose a lot of money. Playing parlays are stupid to begin with, but playing that parlay goes beyond stupid.

[Joe_Shabadoo]

Obviously you lose a lot of money. Playing parlays are stupid to begin with, but playing that parlay goes beyond stupid.

Stupidity held therein only if one parlays just to parlay. Given the situation presented with the prices of Navy/Utah State, it may be the only parlay that I play this season.

And it was not presented in seriousness for you given your sentiment already. I myself might put $200 on it.

[Urbanwildlife]

BigdaddyQH, Once again knock your bullshit off, as you are in no position, and have no right what so ever to tell others how they should play there money, or what type of wager they should be playing. Keep your personal opinions about these types of decisions to yourself. What works for you might not work for them and vice versa. It is THERE MONEY TO WIN OR LOSE, and unless you personally have a stake in there play shut the fuk up and mind your own business, but we know that is very difficult, if not impossible for you to do. I enjoy your passion for the game of College Football, but daily you over step your boundaries to the point you come off sounding like a immature little kid, instead of a grown adult. You owe Joe an apology, and lets see if you are man enough to give it to him.

[Joe_Shabadoo]

If your on the ML your gonna need more than just two stops from that defense. Just saying

If all goes to plan, Navy could come out on top with two punts/two FGs forced if they can get to 38-plus minutes in time of possession. They've done that before against good teams, even going over the 38-minute threshold.

[Joe_Shabadoo]

Joe, I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for authoring one of the more enjoyable football/gambling-related reads that I've had in a while. It's been years since I've listened to debates between Texas HS coaches pertaining to the *chuck and duck* versus *ground and pound*, so reading your posts regarding the *midline* brought back many pleasant memories.

Good luck to you both on the field of play as well as in the gambling arena.

ps: Like you, I intend to play the Midshipmen both with the spread as well as the moneyline.

Thank you. And good luck to you as well.

As well, speaking of high school football Texas: I would not at all mind coaching this offense there or in Maine as they're the only states where cut blocking is legal across the entire field.

So much easier.

[Ralphie Halves]

Joe, given what you know about Navy, have you found an O/U win total, and what is your opinion on it?

[Joe_Shabadoo]

Joe, given what you know about Navy, have you found an O/U win total, and what is your opinion on it?

I have not found a win total, but, based on their schedule, I would handicap it at around [ over 8.5 (-180) ].

One could already my guess on their prospects for this season, but if they can pull off the week-1 upset they could run the table. I don't know what Brian VanGorder will do differently from Bob Diago to muddle Navy's offensive keys this season when they play the Irish at FedEx Field. I'll guess that they will not present anything new to the Middies than what they may have seen the past 12 seasons or so.

I'm not concerned with Coach Jasper and the offense; it's all on how efficient Coach Green and the defense can be within the construct of such a passive defense. I mean, they're running a similar defensive scheme that Jim Casteel did back in the glory days of West Virginia football, but without the operative threat of blitzing. Usually at all.

Don't get me wrong, Buddy Green is a great coach. He gets the best out of athletes that are usually 40-lbs. too light and about .03 sec. too slow to perform what the original scheme required. His squads, recently, have had a much larger athlete at nose-guard than commonly seen at service academies. These players have also been intelligent enough to achieve that "Ralph" technique where the NT "reverse scoops" the center/guard to the opposite angle of run flow, so that the front can two-gap, allowing both ILBs to get across, and not require the NT to also be an amazing athlete that has to beat the center across his face and then deal with an ace block by the guard who also has outside leverage.

In all, I really do see Navy having the potential to run the table this year, even going against tO.S.U., Notre Dame, Rutgers, and an underrated South Alabama squad on the road.

I'm interested to find out what their post-season destination would be if this were to happen.

[BigdaddyQH]

You are looking at a number around 63 for a total. That is what Vegas has up now. Remember that the Notre Dame game is now a night game. That makes it a lot more difficult for the team (Navy) that is not used to playing under the lights.

As far as Navy running the table, you must be dreaming. They have ZERO chance of defeating Ohio state AND Notre Dame. What you overlook is the simple fact that Navy does NOT have the talent that those two teams have. You dreamers out there all make the same mistake. You do NOT bother to look at the talent levels of each team. Are you going to try and tell me that Navy has better talent than Ohio State or Notre Dame? This is why Vegas can afford all of those neon lights and pretty ladies who serve cocktails. Dreamers who always end up broke.

[Joe_Shabadoo]

You are looking at a number around 63 for a total. That is what Vegas has up now. Remember that the Notre Dame game is now a night game. That makes it a lot more difficult for the team (Navy) that is not used to playing under the lights.

As far as Navy running the table, you must be dreaming. They have ZERO chance of defeating Ohio state AND Notre Dame. What you overlook is the simple fact that Navy does NOT have the talent that those two teams have. You dreamers out there all make the same mistake. You do NOT bother to look at the talent levels of each team. Are you going to try and tell me that Navy has better talent than Ohio State or Notre Dame? This is why Vegas can afford all of those neon lights and pretty ladies who serve cocktails. Dreamers who always end up broke.

Nowhere was it written that they have better talent. Your rationale would cancel your own musings about any game, because the same line of thinking would go into applying some transitive property of the best indexed talent is always going to win. Sorry for the cliche' here, but that's why they play the game.

Ohio State and Notre Dame wins this type of game way more often than not, but we're only talking about 60 minutes here.

So, you may re-write that "all these fools on my forum" aren't actually looking at the talent. Actually, yes, I am. Hence my inclusion of a written explanation.

I'm not broke, nor have I ever been, particularly from foolhardy endeavors such as betting based on uninformed whims. And I never tried to "tell" you anything that you posited as written above. Re-read what I wrote, and then do that to your posts in kind.

[SamDiamond]

I have not found a win total, but, based on their schedule, I would handicap it at around [ over 8.5 (-180) ].

One could already my guess on their prospects for this season, but if they can pull off the week-1 upset they could run the table. I don't know what Brian VanGorder will do differently from Bob Diago to muddle Navy's offensive keys this season when they play the Irish at FedEx Field. I'll guess that they will not present anything new to the Middies than what they may have seen the past 12 seasons or so.

I'm not concerned with Coach Jasper and the offense; it's all on how efficient Coach Green and the defense can be within the construct of such a passive defense. I mean, they're running a similar defensive scheme that Jim Casteel did back in the glory days of West Virginia football, but without the operative threat of blitzing. Usually at all.

Don't get me wrong, Buddy Green is a great coach. He gets the best out of athletes that are usually 40-lbs. too light and about .03 sec. too slow to perform what the original scheme required. His squads, recently, have had a much larger athlete at nose-guard than commonly seen at service academies. These players have also been intelligent enough to achieve that "Ralph" technique where the NT "reverse scoops" the center/guard to the opposite angle of run flow, so that the front can two-gap, allowing both ILBs to get across, and not require the NT to also be an amazing athlete that has to beat the center across his face and then deal with an ace block by the guard who also has outside leverage.

In all, I really do see Navy having the potential to run the table this year, even going against tO.S.U., Notre Dame, Rutgers, and an underrated South Alabama squad on the road.

I'm interested to find out what their post-season destination would be if this were to happen.

Joe, I think you're looking at Navy through a fan's eyes.

Navy beating Ohio State AND ND? Come on now.

[Joe_Shabadoo]

Joe, I think you're looking at Navy through a fan's eyes.

Navy beating Ohio State AND ND? Come on now.

I understand the skepticism, but I do provide a valid rationale in terms of just how this team obviates talent differentials.

[BigdaddyQH]

The scary thing about this post is that you actually believe in what you say. You obviously have no idea of how to measure talent. You totally overlook the fact that Navy is extremely weak on Defense, especially up the middle, with no ILB's or Safeties to speak of. Navy also has no WR's returning. The entire secret of Navy's success is their ability to rotate their players. That rotation is severely hampered on defense now. It will take time for Navy to gather enough experience to be able to have a successful rotation. Game one is not nearly enough time to do so.

Ohio State has QB Miller returning and he is far sperior to anyone that Navy has played recently. Ohio State also has a ton of speed retuning at the WR positions, and many more speedsters at the RB position. The DL is one of the best in the nation. Navy can not compete with that type of talent.

Last season, Navy gave up 35 or more points to Indiana, Duke, Toledo, Notre Dame, and San Jose State. The year before last, they gave up 30 or more to Notre Dame, Penn State, Indiana, Troy, and Arizona State. All of those games except one were played away from home. Nvy plays BOTH Ohio State and Notre Dame away from home. I will be suprised if Ohio State does not put up at least 42 against the Navy, and that is way more than they need to win this game. Ohio State is going for a Playoff spot and they will NOT allow a team like Navy get in their way.

I imagine that you will disappear after Ohio State defeats Navy. That is what all of you smooth talking people who have no idea of what they are saying tend to do. You guys sound like salesmen, not football experts.