Execution, not talent, is the Tigers' problem

A few days ago, while bemoaning the now 10-year long bonfire drought, a friend asked me why the football team couldn't recruit better players. Since Princeton hasn't finished higher than fourth in the Ivy League in the past decade, he reasoned, the Tigers must habitually lack the talent of their Ivy foes.

I told my friend that I don't think it's that simple. Truth is, the Orange and Black have boasted some of the most talented individual players in the league over the past decade.

Take the Class of 2005, for example, which graduated with a four-year record of 16-23. Yet, four members of that class spent time in NFL mini-camps last May, and one of them — linebacker Zak Keasey — made his NFL debut on Sunday. In the Ivy League, that sort of talent would seem to be enough to ensure a winning record, at the very least.

So if talent isn't what's missing, there are two alternative explanations: bad luck or poor execution.

Some would argue that the Tigers have been unlucky over the past few years, and perhaps they have. But if you look at the 2004 season, at least, the single strangest play of the year — a botched field goal attempt that somehow turned into a touchdown in the fourth quarter against Dartmouth — won a game for Princeton, not lost it.

Besides, I'm not sure I even believe in luck — don't good teams invariably create their own? If it seems the New England Patriots have been unusually good at avoiding bad luck for the past few years, I'd argue it's because they've avoided situations where one bad bounce could doom them.

That brings us to execution — poor execution, to be more precise. When a football team regularly loses games it could and should win, chronic poor execution is usually to blame.

I can only discuss the last three seasons, the time period during which I've followed the football team. But at the end of each of those years, I've been left with the distinct impression that Princeton has underachieved. In each case, there's no reason the Tigers' record could not have been three games better.

In the fall of 2004, Princeton finished 5-5. After seeing all but one of those games in person, I am convinced that the Tigers should have been 8-2 and could have been 9-1. Only Harvard, clearly the class of the league, was a more talented team last year.

So what happened? Against Colgate, the defense fell asleep just before halftime and gave up a 76-yard run that set up a touchdown then blew a 12-point fourth quarter lead. An inexplicably anemic offense doomed the Tigers against a clearly inferior Cornell team. And wasted first-half field position came back to haunt Princeton versus Penn. Total point differential in those three games: five.

Now let's go back to 2003, when the Tigers went 2-8, but a 5-5 season was easily within reach. Perhaps bad luck was to blame for the winning touchdown inexplicably falling out of the hands of B.J. Szymanski '05 a few feet short of the end zone against Yale, but close losses to Colgate, Harvard and Dartmouth all could easily have gone the other way, too.

Or take 2002, when the most talented Princeton squad in recent memory went 6-4 but should have finished 9-1. The Tigers blew a 24-7 lead against Lehigh, the then-No. 3 team in the country. They lost to Harvard by only a lone touchdown after turning the ball over seven times. And they shut out Yale for 55 minutes before giving up a lone touchdown and losing.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

I know, I know — it's easy for me to second guess from the comfort of the press box. But my point isn't that any one of these losses, or any one of these seasons, was so unforgivable. Teams sometimes just have a bad day or a rough year.

Three games a season, though? Three straight years? That's a trend, my friend. That's chronic underachieving.

Look, I hope I'm wrong. I hope it's just been bad luck. Believe me, I would love to have to eat my words three months from now and would love to have a bonfire my senior year. I just don't see how it's going to happen.

The graduation of the Class of 2005 meant Princeton took a step back during this off-season. With seniors like Justin Stull and Jay McCareins on defense and Greg Fields and the offensive line on offense, the Tigers still have plenty of playmakers on their roster. But a complete lack of experience at quarterback, tailback and fullback means that even if Princeton lives up to every last bit of its potential, another 5-5 season is the best the Tigers can possibly hope for.

If, on the other hand, Princeton continues its recent trend of underachieving — well, let's just say it will be a long, cold winter.