Had a chance to break down the PSU Offense tapes...

[StinkStankStunk]

Hopefully, get some time to look over the defense later in week.


Anyway - - Couple overall thoughts, and some specifics and some personnel stuff.

1 - Not that this needs to be said to most folks here.....but the kid #26 is pretty damn good!

2 - Kent St. was VERY vanilla with their defensive fronts. VERY.

3 - Early in the game, KSU was doing some overloading with their fronts. Just about every time they did this, and created a bubble in their front, whomever was calling the plays for PSU (in their "check with the sideline" system) adjusted the play call to attack the bubble in the run game.
KUDOS to whomever was responsible

KSU obviously realized that as well - - - and they went completely to base standard gap defenses up front after the 1st quarter.

4 - Kent RARELY blitzed....and they DID NOT stack the line (until late in the game).

The few times they did blitz, it was generally with a safety through the box, or occasionally with a corner off of the slot. Only a couple all day with the LBers

They played a lot of 6 man boxes, and occasionally dropped a safety down to create a 7 man box......but that was it. And they DID NOT crowd the LOS up front until the 4th quarter (when they started to do some more exotic stuff)

5 - In pass protection, damn near every time KSU blitzed or ran any stunts/twists (which wasn't that often)....the PSU O Line was horrible.....HORRIBLE....at adjusting on the fly.

Reminded me of some of the old Wisconsin OLines - with those big ginormous run blockers, but guys who could not move their feet in pass protection (some folks will remember who some of the old PSU defenses - with guys like Tamba Hali - used to ABUSE Wisconsin with the pass rush)

I am quite sure that opposing defensive coordinators will take note - - - - and I would expect, beginning next week with Pitt, we will see a multitude of stunts/twists/blitzes in pass down situations.
If the PSU OLine doesn't make HUGE strides, it could get ugly.


Personnel wise:

OL: PSU had 13 possessions (not counting the end of game kneel down)

The starting group 70 Mahon - 52 Bates - 72 Gaia - 53 Dowrey - 59 Nelson...... played 5 of them

70-52-72-66(McGovern for Dowrey)-59.........played 2

70-55(Laurent for Bates)-72-53-59.........played 4

70-52-72-55 (Laurent for Dowrey)-59.......played 2 (Wright came in for Nelson for a few plays of this drive, when Nelson got banged up)

So, overall:
70 (Mahon) - all 13 series
52 (Bates) - 9 series
72 (Gaia) - all 13 series
53 (Dowrey) - 9 series
59 (Nelson) - all 13 series, aside from a couple snaps due to injury

55 (Laurent) - played 6
66 (McGovern) - played 2



When evaluating specific players - from just one game - it is tough - - - - since I don't know the KSU personnel well enough to know who had "the tougher assignments".
But, without knowing who among the KSU front may have been the better players:

Pass protection:

Against the vanilla rushes - was mostly pretty good.

At tackle:

70 - Beaten badly just the one time - but it was very costly
59 - Only one bad beat in protection against base rushes

Inside:

53 - was absolutely abused twice against base pass rushes. Not his strength (to say the least)

Otherwise, the group inside (52, 55, 66, 72) held up well against the base four man rush


Against blitz/stunt - ugly all around

As mentioned, KSU did not run many stunts or blitzes in the pass game.
A couple of times they just had PSU out-schemed with an extra unblockable man....but even with "even numbers", the PSU front was awful in adjusting assignments to the movement.

When they did blitz/stunt, I don't think there were many times the line handled it well at all - - - fortunately McSorley was able to escape from a couple....and throw away a couple more......keeping sacks to a minimum

Non-Linemen:

That kid - 26 - was very good in pass-pro. Had one poor blitz pick up, but otherwise was really good.
On the other hand, 88 was horrible......and it seemed to be as much a lack of effort/commitment as anything (more on 88 in the run game below)


Run Game:

Given how basic KSU played their fronts.....not a good effort.
I didn't expect a whole lot - since I suppose the KSU front 7 is reasonably good for a MAC team (my guess, after watching them, is they might be better than a couple of B1G fronts).....but time will tell.....and I didn't expect HUGE improvements from the O Line.
That said, still a rather disappointing effort.
If not for a great effort from that kid - 26 - the run game would have been a complete crapper.


Inside guys:

72 (and he should be given credit for being pretty consistent on his snaps all day - not a given for a guy making his first start at OC) was generally lousy. The OC has to make a lot of "finesse/technique" blocks that involve helping out on of the OGs, and then getting off to the 2nd level. He was BAD....which, I guess, should be expected given the unique characteristics of the position....which was all new to him.
In one-on-one situations, more often than not, he simply couldn't handle his guy - - - and was destroyed more than once

By far - - - and this was the case last year as well - - - the most fundamentally sound interior offensive lineman, and the most mobile and agile one, was 55 (Laurent) He still at times gets overpowered - he just seems to be a little short on strength and power - but he is nearly perfect in getting the correct leverage points and having the footwork to get to the right spots.

53 was very inconsistent in his run game blocking. A couple of complete "whiffs" that shoulda' resulted in big negative plays, 52, and 66 were both "ok" in the run game



Tackles:

59 was mostly solid in the run game - had one particularly bad beat, but otherwise OK.
70 was OK early on, but really struggled as the game progressed, particularly when he was assigned to block on the move

Non-Linemen:

88 had a horrendous day. He was asked to make some inside trap type blocks, and a couple times was on the edge for some outside runs.
I am not sure if he had any real solid achievements in the blocking game all day (including pass pro, which he was asked to do a few times as well)
Unfortunately, this was "deja vu all over again" (he and Kyle Carter may have had the worst blocking years ever for PSU tight ends in 2015). If PSU had another legit option right now, he would be in danger of spending a lot of time on the sidelines - I would think

Overall, run game FUBARS (plays where they just got abused/overwhelmed/whiffed):

Mahon - 4
Nelson - 1
Gaia - 3
Dowrey - 2
Bates - 1
Laurent - 0
McGovern - 0

Gesicki - 4 (and he wasn't asked to block all that much)





Aside from the one hold on 59 (which was a tough deal, the play was set up as an inside run, and when that was shut down, Barkley bounced outside and 59 was left with a bad leverage situation), I don't recall any live action penalties.....so a solid effort there


The backfield was basically 9 and 26 (6 had a couple snaps at RB)

26 may be better than even most Penn Staters think he is. He made 1, maybe 2 bad cuts/reads all day.....and he made more yards out of bad blocking than just about anyone could imagine.
The kid was impressive. (and the one chance to get involved in the pass game he made one heck of a catch)
If the O Line ever comes around, he is gonna' light things up

9, quite frankly, IMO, struggled with some things. Not to be unexpected - - - first start for the young man in an offensive scheme that is still relatively new.

But he also did "the little things" well - IMO:

Handled the line of scrimmage well.
Most of his reads in the run game were proper (really, only one or two that were even questionable).
He seemed to get passes of relatively quickly (he didn't have a lot of pressure - so that sure helped.....and the defensive scheme was pretty simple)

What he is not - or at least what he didn't show on Saturday:

He is a willing runner - but not a dangerous runner. Based on that performance, he will not force any defensive coordinators to gameplan to stop his run game
Either by design, or by execution, the pass game was very simple. Unfortunately, with what was shown on Saturday, 9 doesn't have the skill set to scare any defense within the passing game that was utilized.
I am not sure if the simplicity of the pass game was purely an attempt to keep things limited - or it was an attempt to "not ask 9 to do things he isn't capable of doing"......but I think it is probably a bit of both.
We will certainly know better as the season goes along - but for now, at the least, QB play is a huge question mark going into the Pitt game.

Unfortunately, the limitations on offense, and at QB, stifled any attempts to fully utilize the guiys outside.
We mostly saw what we already knew:
12 is a darn good receiver
5 can be very good - if he gets a chance to contribute (which he couldn't last year, due to the limitations of the offense, and couldn't on Saturday - as the inside receiver role was all but non-existent) He did run a nice route and make a nice catch for the TD.....but this kid is legit, and its a real shame if PSU can't find a way to get him at least 4-5 balls per game
It was nice to see 3 get a chance to make a big play....and 13 had a couple moments (both memorable and forgettable)......but there just were not enough opportunities out there to see where 10, 84, 11 might fit into the mix.
I think we all feel there is a lot of talent, and a lot of depth of talent out there. Hopefully we can find (or develop) a "trigger man" to fully utilize them.
Time will tell
.

 

[21Guns]

Mahon and Gaia are liabilities, but hey, let's continue to give them lollipops for good sportsmanship.

 

[Marylovesthelions]

Damn. Guess we were lucky to win the game.

 

[NCLION]

Keep in mind if MCSorley doesn't under throw 88, we kick extra point instead of trying for two, and we don't give up fumble Td we win 38-6
Lot of ifs but I never felt we would lose this game. Last year We would have

 

[Player2BNamedL8r]

Keep in mind if MCSorley doesn't under throw 88, we kick extra point instead of trying for two, and we don't give up fumble Td we win 38-6
Lot of ifs but I never felt we would lose this game. Last year We would have

I get your point, but outside of the extra point, the opponent had something to do with those "ifs"...and the opponent was a perennial MAC bottom feeder. These kids have got to get better, and this is the first year when if they don't, Franklin should start to feel some heat.

 

[marisa45]

Alright I read this handle and I will give you credit for the analysis. You know your stuff. 72, 53 and 70 continue to be 3 year works-in-progress. I believe in Limegrover but at least from this game, I was worried (alot) about moving 70 outside, he seemed at least a capable road grader and could have been valuable inside in the running game. He would at least keep 53 off the field. 72 has good and bad games and most off us scratch our heads as to why 55 can't stay on the field more. Strength (as you mention) is probably the reason but I like his athleticism and he seems to lift the energy level when he's out there. 66 had his redshirt burned so look for him to be an ever increasing presence on the inside. He might change the dynamic inside given time. I can't help but think that 70 outside is going to cost us some games.

The problem with the group is inconsistency. They each may make 3 or 4 bad plays but they seem to be on different plays so you have 10 to 15 bad plays for the group and it kills the momentum of the offense. Still, it has to be kept in mind this is the first game. I am particularly frustrated that between Beh and Paris, we couldn't find a starting left tackle, I was afraid it would lead to some internal isues with this line and it showed up in this game. My only thought is they are trying to get McGovern acclimated to take over a larger percentage of the snaps and thought 70 could handle it outside.

 

[21Guns]

Alright I read this handle and I will give you credit for the analysis. You know your stuff. 72, 53 and 70 continue to be 3 year works-in-progress. I believe in Limegrover but at least from this game, I was worried (alot) about moving 70 outside, he seemed at least a capable road grader and could have been valuable inside in the running game. He would at least keep 53 off the field. 72 has good and bad games and most off us scratch our heads as to why 55 can't stay on the field more. Strength (as you mention) is probably the reason but I like his athleticism and he seems to lift the energy level when he's out there. 66 had his redshirt burned so look for him to be an ever increasing presence on the inside. He might change the dynamic inside given time. I can't help but think that 70 outside is going to cost us some games.

The problem with the group is inconsistency. They each may make 3 or 4 bad plays but they seem to be on different plays so you have 10 to 15 bad plays for the group and it kills the momentum of the offense. Still, it has to be kept in mind this is the first game. I am particularly frustrated that between Beh and Paris, we couldn't find a starting left tackle, I was afraid it would lead to some internal isues with this line and it showed up in this game. My only thought is they are trying to get McGovern acclimated to take over a larger percentage of the snaps and thought 70 could handle it outside.

72, 70 and 53 simply dont belong on the field. It is maddening that the staff doesnt turn the damn thing over to the kids already. Frustrating.

 

[21Guns]

Alright I read this handle and I will give you credit for the analysis. You know your stuff. 72, 53 and 70 continue to be 3 year works-in-progress. I believe in Limegrover but at least from this game, I was worried (alot) about moving 70 outside, he seemed at least a capable road grader and could have been valuable inside in the running game. He would at least keep 53 off the field. 72 has good and bad games and most off us scratch our heads as to why 55 can't stay on the field more. Strength (as you mention) is probably the reason but I like his athleticism and he seems to lift the energy level when he's out there. 66 had his redshirt burned so look for him to be an ever increasing presence on the inside. He might change the dynamic inside given time. I can't help but think that 70 outside is going to cost us some games.

The problem with the group is inconsistency. They each may make 3 or 4 bad plays but they seem to be on different plays so you have 10 to 15 bad plays for the group and it kills the momentum of the offense. Still, it has to be kept in mind this is the first game. I am particularly frustrated that between Beh and Paris, we couldn't find a starting left tackle, I was afraid it would lead to some internal isues with this line and it showed up in this game. My only thought is they are trying to get McGovern acclimated to take over a larger percentage of the snaps and thought 70 could handle it outside.

I just graded them out a few minutes ago: I gave 72 an F, 70 a D-minus, and 53 a D plus. Just awful.

 

[mn78psu83]

Hopefully, get some time to look over the defense later in week.


Anyway - - Couple overall thoughts, and some specifics and some personnel stuff.

1 - Not that this needs to be said to most folks here.....but the kid #26 is pretty damn good!

2 - Kent St. was VERY vanilla with their defensive fronts. VERY.

3 - Early in the game, KSU was doing some overloading with their fronts. Just about every time they did this, and created a bubble in their front, whomever was calling the plays for PSU (in their "check with the sideline" system) adjusted the play call to attack the bubble in the run game.
KUDOS to whomever was responsible

KSU obviously realized that as well - - - and they went completely to base standard gap defenses up front after the 1st quarter.

4 - Kent RARELY blitzed....and they DID NOT stack the line (until late in the game).

The few times they did blitz, it was generally with a safety through the box, or occasionally with a corner off of the slot. Only a couple all day with the LBers

They played a lot of 6 man boxes, and occasionally dropped a safety down to create a 7 man box......but that was it. And they DID NOT crowd the LOS up front until the 4th quarter (when they started to do some more exotic stuff)

5 - In pass protection, damn near every time KSU blitzed or ran any stunts/twists (which wasn't that often)....the PSU O Line was horrible.....HORRIBLE....at adjusting on the fly.

Reminded me of some of the old Wisconsin OLines - with those big ginormous run blockers, but guys who could not move their feet in pass protection (some folks will remember who some of the old PSU defenses - with guys like Tamba Hali - used to ABUSE Wisconsin with the pass rush)

I am quite sure that opposing defensive coordinators will take note - - - - and I would expect, beginning next week with Pitt, we will see a multitude of stunts/twists/blitzes in pass down situations.
If the PSU OLine doesn't make HUGE strides, it could get ugly.


Personnel wise:

OL: PSU had 13 possessions (not counting the end of game kneel down)

The starting group 70 Mahon - 52 Bates - 72 Gaia - 53 Dowrey - 59 Nelson...... played 5 of them

70-52-72-66(McGovern for Dowrey)-59.........played 2

70-55(Laurent for Bates)-72-53-59.........played 4

70-52-72-55 (Laurent for Dowrey)-59.......played 2 (Wright came in for Nelson for a few plays of this drive, when Nelson got banged up)

So, overall:
70 (Mahon) - all 13 series
52 (Bates) - 9 series
72 (Gaia) - all 13 series
53 (Dowrey) - 9 series
59 (Nelson) - all 13 series, aside from a couple snaps due to injury

55 (Laurent) - played 6
66 (McGovern) - played 2



When evaluating specific players - from just one game - it is tough - - - - since I don't know the KSU personnel well enough to know who had "the tougher assignments".
But, without knowing who among the KSU front may have been the better players:

Pass protection:

Against the vanilla rushes - was mostly pretty good.

At tackle:

70 - Beaten badly just the one time - but it was very costly
59 - Only one bad beat in protection against base rushes

Inside:

53 - was absolutely abused twice against base pass rushes. Not his strength (to say the least)

Otherwise, the group inside (52, 55, 66, 72) held up well against the base four man rush


Against blitz/stunt - ugly all around

As mentioned, KSU did not run many stunts or blitzes in the pass game.
A couple of times they just had PSU out-schemed with an extra unblockable man....but even with "even numbers", the PSU front was awful in adjusting assignments to the movement.

When they did blitz/stunt, I don't think there were many times the line handled it well at all - - - fortunately McSorley was able to escape from a couple....and throw away a couple more......keeping sacks to a minimum

Non-Linemen:

That kid - 26 - was very good in pass-pro. Had one poor blitz pick up, but otherwise was really good.
On the other hand, 88 was horrible......and it seemed to be as much a lack of effort/commitment as anything (more on 88 in the run game below)


Run Game:

Given how basic KSU played their fronts.....not a good effort.
I didn't expect a whole lot - since I suppose the KSU front 7 is reasonably good for a MAC team (my guess, after watching them, is they might be better than a couple of B1G fronts).....but time will tell.....and I didn't expect HUGE improvements from the O Line.
That said, still a rather disappointing effort.
If not for a great effort from that kid - 26 - the run game would have been a complete crapper.


Inside guys:

72 (and he should be given credit for being pretty consistent on his snaps all day - not a given for a guy making his first start at OC) was generally lousy. The OC has to make a lot of "finesse/technique" blocks that involve helping out on of the OGs, and then getting off to the 2nd level. He was BAD....which, I guess, should be expected given the unique characteristics of the position....which was all new to him.
In one-on-one situations, more often than not, he simply couldn't handle his guy - - - and was destroyed more than once

By far - - - and this was the case last year as well - - - the most fundamentally sound interior offensive lineman, and the most mobile and agile one, was 55 (Laurent) He still at times gets overpowered - he just seems to be a little short on strength and power - but he is nearly perfect in getting the correct leverage points and having the footwork to get to the right spots.

53 was very inconsistent in his run game blocking. A couple of complete "whiffs" that shoulda' resulted in big negative plays, 52, and 66 were both "ok" in the run game



Tackles:

59 was mostly solid in the run game - had one particularly bad beat, but otherwise OK.
70 was OK early on, but really struggled as the game progressed, particularly when he was assigned to block on the move

Non-Linemen:

88 had a horrendous day. He was asked to make some inside trap type blocks, and a couple times was on the edge for some outside runs.
I am not sure if he had any real solid achievements in the blocking game all day (including pass pro, which he was asked to do a few times as well)
Unfortunately, this was "deja vu all over again" (he and Kyle Carter may have had the worst blocking years ever for PSU tight ends in 2015). If PSU had another legit option right now, he would be in danger of spending a lot of time on the sidelines - I would think

Overall, run game FUBARS (plays where they just got abused/overwhelmed/whiffed):

Mahon - 4
Nelson - 1
Gaia - 3
Dowrey - 2
Bates - 1
Laurent - 0
McGovern - 0

Gesicki - 4 (and he wasn't asked to block all that much)





Aside from the one hold on 59 (which was a tough deal, the play was set up as an inside run, and when that was shut down, Barkley bounced outside and 59 was left with a bad leverage situation), I don't recall any live action penalties.....so a solid effort there


The backfield was basically 9 and 26 (6 had a couple snaps at RB)

26 may be better than even most Penn Staters think he is. He made 1, maybe 2 bad cuts/reads all day.....and he made more yards out of bad blocking than just about anyone could imagine.
The kid was impressive. (and the one chance to get involved in the pass game he made one heck of a catch)
If the O Line ever comes around, he is gonna' light things up

9, quite frankly, IMO, struggled with some things. Not to be unexpected - - - first start for the young man in an offensive scheme that is still relatively new.

But he also did "the little things" well - IMO:

Handled the line of scrimmage well.
Most of his reads in the run game were proper (really, only one or two that were even questionable).
He seemed to get passes of relatively quickly (he didn't have a lot of pressure - so that sure helped.....and the defensive scheme was pretty simple)

What he is not - or at least what he didn't show on Saturday:

He is a willing runner - but not a dangerous runner. Based on that performance, he will not force any defensive coordinators to gameplan to stop his run game
Either by design, or by execution, the pass game was very simple. Unfortunately, with what was shown on Saturday, 9 doesn't have the skill set to scare any defense within the passing game that was utilized.
I am not sure if the simplicity of the pass game was purely an attempt to keep things limited - or it was an attempt to "not ask 9 to do things he isn't capable of doing"......but I think it is probably a bit of both.
We will certainly know better as the season goes along - but for now, at the least, QB play is a huge question mark going into the Pitt game.

Unfortunately, the limitations on offense, and at QB, stifled any attempts to fully utilize the guiys outside.
We mostly saw what we already knew:
12 is a darn good receiver
5 can be very good - if he gets a chance to contribute (which he couldn't last year, due to the limitations of the offense, and couldn't on Saturday - as the inside receiver role was all but non-existent) He did run a nice route and make a nice catch for the TD.....but this kid is legit, and its a real shame if PSU can't find a way to get him at least 4-5 balls per game
It was nice to see 3 get a chance to make a big play....and 13 had a couple moments (both memorable and forgettable)......but there just were not enough opportunities out there to see where 10, 84, 11 might fit into the mix.
I think we all feel there is a lot of talent, and a lot of depth of talent out there. Hopefully we can find (or develop) a "trigger man" to fully utilize them.
Time will tell
.

Damn Stink. Nobody can question your dedication as a fan. Great post.

 

[Springcity]

Hopefully, get some time to look over the defense later in week.


Anyway - - Couple overall thoughts, and some specifics and some personnel stuff.

1 - Not that this needs to be said to most folks here.....but the kid #26 is pretty damn good!

2 - Kent St. was VERY vanilla with their defensive fronts. VERY.

3 - Early in the game, KSU was doing some overloading with their fronts. Just about every time they did this, and created a bubble in their front, whomever was calling the plays for PSU (in their "check with the sideline" system) adjusted the play call to attack the bubble in the run game.
KUDOS to whomever was responsible

KSU obviously realized that as well - - - and they went completely to base standard gap defenses up front after the 1st quarter.

4 - Kent RARELY blitzed....and they DID NOT stack the line (until late in the game).

The few times they did blitz, it was generally with a safety through the box, or occasionally with a corner off of the slot. Only a couple all day with the LBers

They played a lot of 6 man boxes, and occasionally dropped a safety down to create a 7 man box......but that was it. And they DID NOT crowd the LOS up front until the 4th quarter (when they started to do some more exotic stuff)

5 - In pass protection, damn near every time KSU blitzed or ran any stunts/twists (which wasn't that often)....the PSU O Line was horrible.....HORRIBLE....at adjusting on the fly.

Reminded me of some of the old Wisconsin OLines - with those big ginormous run blockers, but guys who could not move their feet in pass protection (some folks will remember who some of the old PSU defenses - with guys like Tamba Hali - used to ABUSE Wisconsin with the pass rush)

I am quite sure that opposing defensive coordinators will take note - - - - and I would expect, beginning next week with Pitt, we will see a multitude of stunts/twists/blitzes in pass down situations.
If the PSU OLine doesn't make HUGE strides, it could get ugly.


Personnel wise:

OL: PSU had 13 possessions (not counting the end of game kneel down)

The starting group 70 Mahon - 52 Bates - 72 Gaia - 53 Dowrey - 59 Nelson...... played 5 of them

70-52-72-66(McGovern for Dowrey)-59.........played 2

70-55(Laurent for Bates)-72-53-59.........played 4

70-52-72-55 (Laurent for Dowrey)-59.......played 2 (Wright came in for Nelson for a few plays of this drive, when Nelson got banged up)

So, overall:
70 (Mahon) - all 13 series
52 (Bates) - 9 series
72 (Gaia) - all 13 series
53 (Dowrey) - 9 series
59 (Nelson) - all 13 series, aside from a couple snaps due to injury

55 (Laurent) - played 6
66 (McGovern) - played 2



When evaluating specific players - from just one game - it is tough - - - - since I don't know the KSU personnel well enough to know who had "the tougher assignments".
But, without knowing who among the KSU front may have been the better players:

Pass protection:

Against the vanilla rushes - was mostly pretty good.

At tackle:

70 - Beaten badly just the one time - but it was very costly
59 - Only one bad beat in protection against base rushes

Inside:

53 - was absolutely abused twice against base pass rushes. Not his strength (to say the least)

Otherwise, the group inside (52, 55, 66, 72) held up well against the base four man rush


Against blitz/stunt - ugly all around

As mentioned, KSU did not run many stunts or blitzes in the pass game.
A couple of times they just had PSU out-schemed with an extra unblockable man....but even with "even numbers", the PSU front was awful in adjusting assignments to the movement.

When they did blitz/stunt, I don't think there were many times the line handled it well at all - - - fortunately McSorley was able to escape from a couple....and throw away a couple more......keeping sacks to a minimum

Non-Linemen:

That kid - 26 - was very good in pass-pro. Had one poor blitz pick up, but otherwise was really good.
On the other hand, 88 was horrible......and it seemed to be as much a lack of effort/commitment as anything (more on 88 in the run game below)


Run Game:

Given how basic KSU played their fronts.....not a good effort.
I didn't expect a whole lot - since I suppose the KSU front 7 is reasonably good for a MAC team (my guess, after watching them, is they might be better than a couple of B1G fronts).....but time will tell.....and I didn't expect HUGE improvements from the O Line.
That said, still a rather disappointing effort.
If not for a great effort from that kid - 26 - the run game would have been a complete crapper.


Inside guys:

72 (and he should be given credit for being pretty consistent on his snaps all day - not a given for a guy making his first start at OC) was generally lousy. The OC has to make a lot of "finesse/technique" blocks that involve helping out on of the OGs, and then getting off to the 2nd level. He was BAD....which, I guess, should be expected given the unique characteristics of the position....which was all new to him.
In one-on-one situations, more often than not, he simply couldn't handle his guy - - - and was destroyed more than once

By far - - - and this was the case last year as well - - - the most fundamentally sound interior offensive lineman, and the most mobile and agile one, was 55 (Laurent) He still at times gets overpowered - he just seems to be a little short on strength and power - but he is nearly perfect in getting the correct leverage points and having the footwork to get to the right spots.

53 was very inconsistent in his run game blocking. A couple of complete "whiffs" that shoulda' resulted in big negative plays, 52, and 66 were both "ok" in the run game



Tackles:

59 was mostly solid in the run game - had one particularly bad beat, but otherwise OK.
70 was OK early on, but really struggled as the game progressed, particularly when he was assigned to block on the move

Non-Linemen:

88 had a horrendous day. He was asked to make some inside trap type blocks, and a couple times was on the edge for some outside runs.
I am not sure if he had any real solid achievements in the blocking game all day (including pass pro, which he was asked to do a few times as well)
Unfortunately, this was "deja vu all over again" (he and Kyle Carter may have had the worst blocking years ever for PSU tight ends in 2015). If PSU had another legit option right now, he would be in danger of spending a lot of time on the sidelines - I would think

Overall, run game FUBARS (plays where they just got abused/overwhelmed/whiffed):

Mahon - 4
Nelson - 1
Gaia - 3
Dowrey - 2
Bates - 1
Laurent - 0
McGovern - 0

Gesicki - 4 (and he wasn't asked to block all that much)





Aside from the one hold on 59 (which was a tough deal, the play was set up as an inside run, and when that was shut down, Barkley bounced outside and 59 was left with a bad leverage situation), I don't recall any live action penalties.....so a solid effort there


The backfield was basically 9 and 26 (6 had a couple snaps at RB)

26 may be better than even most Penn Staters think he is. He made 1, maybe 2 bad cuts/reads all day.....and he made more yards out of bad blocking than just about anyone could imagine.
The kid was impressive. (and the one chance to get involved in the pass game he made one heck of a catch)
If the O Line ever comes around, he is gonna' light things up

9, quite frankly, IMO, struggled with some things. Not to be unexpected - - - first start for the young man in an offensive scheme that is still relatively new.

But he also did "the little things" well - IMO:

Handled the line of scrimmage well.
Most of his reads in the run game were proper (really, only one or two that were even questionable).
He seemed to get passes of relatively quickly (he didn't have a lot of pressure - so that sure helped.....and the defensive scheme was pretty simple)

What he is not - or at least what he didn't show on Saturday:

He is a willing runner - but not a dangerous runner. Based on that performance, he will not force any defensive coordinators to gameplan to stop his run game
Either by design, or by execution, the pass game was very simple. Unfortunately, with what was shown on Saturday, 9 doesn't have the skill set to scare any defense within the passing game that was utilized.
I am not sure if the simplicity of the pass game was purely an attempt to keep things limited - or it was an attempt to "not ask 9 to do things he isn't capable of doing"......but I think it is probably a bit of both.
We will certainly know better as the season goes along - but for now, at the least, QB play is a huge question mark going into the Pitt game.

Unfortunately, the limitations on offense, and at QB, stifled any attempts to fully utilize the guiys outside.
We mostly saw what we already knew:
12 is a darn good receiver
5 can be very good - if he gets a chance to contribute (which he couldn't last year, due to the limitations of the offense, and couldn't on Saturday - as the inside receiver role was all but non-existent) He did run a nice route and make a nice catch for the TD.....but this kid is legit, and its a real shame if PSU can't find a way to get him at least 4-5 balls per game
It was nice to see 3 get a chance to make a big play....and 13 had a couple moments (both memorable and forgettable)......but there just were not enough opportunities out there to see where 10, 84, 11 might fit into the mix.
I think we all feel there is a lot of talent, and a lot of depth of talent out there. Hopefully we can find (or develop) a "trigger man" to fully utilize them.
Time will tell
.

Thank you for taking the time

 

[sluggo72]

where do you find the all 11 tapes? tia

 

[n1tlion]

Serious inquiry, fairly new poster to the board,
Very thorough analysis, what is OPs qualifications? Former football coach/o line player?

 

[AWS1022]

Serious inquiry, fairly new poster to the board,
Very thorough analysis, what is OPs qualifications? Former football coach/o line player?

About the same as everyone else on the board...Monday morning quarterbacking with a wealth of little gridders coaching experience...and maybe some posters have some high school line coaching experience at some single A school in Podunct, PA. But it's a good thing they spend countless hours doing these break downs because our highly paid, career coaches would never think to do it and certainly aren't qualified.

 

[uPBRmeASAP]

The o-line was fine in pass protection yesterday. There was one really ugly and costly sack, but otherwise McSorley had time to throw.

Kent State was rated the #1 most experienced team in all FBS by Phil Steele. That's one of his most heavily weighted indicators for his forecast models.

Kent St also lead the MAC last year in TFL and sacks (22nd overall in the country) and returned basically their whole defense The guy Mahon was matched up against was 1st team all MAC last year (Terrance Waugh - 9 sacks, 12 TFL) and much better than the Temple DE who abused Paris Palmer.

The point here is that you need to evaluate our o-line performance relative to the competition and Kent State is going to have a good defense this year. Even their secondary returned two first team All Mac performers. Their safety Nate Holley, who seemingly kept making tackles in space on Barkley, had 141 tackles. Their top corner, Monday, was one of the NCAA leaders in INTs last year with 6. Those are big time numbers.

I'm not saying the Kent State defense is as good as Temple's last year but there are definitely a lot of similarities with how both teams returned everybody, including three 1st team All Conference players from the previous year.

Thus, from that perspective I give the o-line and offense in general more credit than most.

 

[rudedude]

The o-line was fine in pass protection yesterday. There was one really ugly and costly sack, but otherwise McSorley had time to throw.

Kent State was rated the #1 most experienced team in all FBS by Phil Steele. That's one of his most heavily weighted indicators for his forecast models.

Kent St also lead the MAC last year in TFL and sacks (22nd overall in the country) and returned basically their whole defense The guy Mahon was matched up against was 1st team all MAC last year (Terrance Waugh - 9 sacks, 12 TFL) and much better than the Temple DE who abused Paris Palmer.

The point here is that you need to evaluate our o-line performance relative to the competition and Kent State is going to have a good defense this year. Even their secondary returned two first team All Mac performers. Their safety Nate Holley, who seemingly kept making tackles in space on Barkley, had 141 tackles. Their top corner, Monday, was one of the NCAA leaders in INTs last year with 6. Those are big time numbers.

I'm not saying the Kent State defense is as good as Temple's last year but there are definitely a lot of similarities with how both teams returned everybody, including three 1st team All Conference players from the previous year.

Thus, from that perspective I give the o-line and offense in general more credit than most.

How dare you bring logic and reason into a discussion on this board!

 

[wbcincy]

About the same as everyone else on the board...Monday morning quarterbacking with a wealth of little gridders coaching experience...and maybe some posters have some high school line coaching experience at some single A school in Podunct, PA. But it's a good thing they spend countless hours doing these break downs because our highly paid, career coaches would never think to do it and certainly aren't qualified.

Well since our coaches aren't going to break it down and tell me about it, I'll take someone else's analysis who took the time. It's not like he did it so Penn State's coaches could learn from it.

 

[AWS1022]

Well since our coaches aren't going to break it down and tell me about it, I'll take someone else's analysis who took the time. It's not like he did it so Penn State's coaches could learn from it.

And his qualifications?

 

[mn78psu83]

Serious inquiry, fairly new poster to the board,
Very thorough analysis, what is OPs qualifications? Former football coach/o line player?

Not sure if he's coached at all. Stink, nevertheless, is an analyst of some distinction - not just breaking down the Xs and Os either. He applies his analytical skills with rigor to all topics in which he holds an interest - football, legal proceedings, government corruption, non-profit governance and malfeasance, and the intellectual shortcomings of fellow posters are all prime topics for Stink.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

The o-line was fine in pass protection yesterday. There was one really ugly and costly sack, but otherwise McSorley had time to throw.

Kent State was rated the #1 most experienced team in all FBS by Phil Steele. That's one of his most heavily weighted indicators for his forecast models.

Kent St also lead the MAC last year in TFL and sacks (22nd overall in the country) and returned basically their whole defense The guy Mahon was matched up against was 1st team all MAC last year (Terrance Waugh - 9 sacks, 12 TFL) and much better than the Temple DE who abused Paris Palmer.

The point here is that you need to evaluate our o-line performance relative to the competition and Kent State is going to have a good defense this year. Even their secondary returned two first team All Mac performers. Their safety Nate Holley, who seemingly kept making tackles in space on Barkley, had 141 tackles. Their top corner, Monday, was one of the NCAA leaders in INTs last year with 6. Those are big time numbers.

I'm not saying the Kent State defense is as good as Temple's last year but there are definitely a lot of similarities with how both teams returned everybody, including three 1st team All Conference players from the previous year.

Thus, from that perspective I give the o-line and offense in general more credit than most.

Returning an experienced unit that has a lot of playing time together also allows you to take far more risks on defense such as playing man on outside receivers and bringing 1 or both safeties up into the box (which KSU did quite a bit). I don't care what conference you play in, if you are playing an opener in which half of your defense is making their first start and the unit has not played any games together, you cannot take a lot of risks defensively. KSU not only was returning an experienced unit, but a very highly rated unit from last year. Even with all of that, PSU's offense was still far more consistent than they were last year, especially in their opener (PSU averaged 12 1st Downs per game last year - they put up 19 yesterday and KSU was playing a lot of outside man coverage and stacking the box looking stop the run).

 

[mn78psu83]

Returning an experienced unit that has a lot of playing time together also allows you to take far more risks on defense such as playing man on outside receivers and bringing 1 or both safeties up into the box (which KSU did quite a bit). I don't care what conference you play in, if you are playing an opener in which half of your defense is making their first start and the unit has not played any games together, you cannot take a lot of risks defensively. KSU not only was returning an experienced unit, but a very highly rated unit from last year. Even with all of that, PSU's offense was still far more consistent than they were last year, especially in their opener (PSU averaged 12 1st Downs per game last year - they put up 19 yesterday and KSU was playing a lot of outside man coverage and stacking the box looking stop the run).

Well-stated Professor Bushwood. Kent State has a good, experienced defensive unit and the PSU O showed improvement against it yesterday. The PSU O was not nearly perfect (as Stink's thorough analysis so cogently shows) but much improved.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

The o-line was fine in pass protection yesterday. There was one really ugly and costly sack, but otherwise McSorley had time to throw.

Kent State was rated the #1 most experienced team in all FBS by Phil Steele. That's one of his most heavily weighted indicators for his forecast models.

Kent St also lead the MAC last year in TFL and sacks (22nd overall in the country) and returned basically their whole defense The guy Mahon was matched up against was 1st team all MAC last year (Terrance Waugh - 9 sacks, 12 TFL) and much better than the Temple DE who abused Paris Palmer.

The point here is that you need to evaluate our o-line performance relative to the competition and Kent State is going to have a good defense this year. Even their secondary returned two first team All Mac performers. Their safety Nate Holley, who seemingly kept making tackles in space on Barkley, had 141 tackles. Their top corner, Monday, was one of the NCAA leaders in INTs last year with 6. Those are big time numbers.

I'm not saying the Kent State defense is as good as Temple's last year but there are definitely a lot of similarities with how both teams returned everybody, including three 1st team All Conference players from the previous year.

Thus, from that perspective I give the o-line and offense in general more credit than most.

Returning an experienced unit that has a lot of playing time together also allows you to take far more risks on defense such as playing man on outside receivers and bringing 1 or both safeties up into the box (which KSU did quite a bit). I don't care what conference you play in, if you are playing an opener in which half of your defense is making their first start and the unit has not played any games together, you cannot take a lot of risks defensively. KSU not only was returning an experienced unit, but a very highly rated unit from last year. Even with all of that, PSU's offense was still far more consistent than they were last year, especially in their opener (PSU averaged 12 1st Downs per game last year - they put up 19 yesterday and KSU was playing a lot of outside man coverage and stacking the box looking stop the run).

If anything, PSU's defense played more "inconsistently" - looking great on some plays and looking bad on others (especially in terms of "over-pursuing", taking overly-aggressive angles and losing back-side contain on "counter plays"). But this is to be expected from a defense with new starters that has not played a lot of football together - the reality is that you learn a lot more from making mistakes (i.e., "live and learn") than you do anything else. It is simply unrealistic to expect new starters and a unit that has not played much together to go out and play perfectly from the first whistle. Not going to happen.

I also liked the fact that the offense never seemed to go into a funk where they got down on themselves and it turned into a self-perpetuating cycle (i.e., lose all momentum). PSU clearly took over the game on both sides of the ball in the second half and steadily pulled away. Would it have been nice if they played even better? Sure. But PSU did not play nearly as poorly as they did in last year's opener against a very good and experienced defense. One last thing, we still don't know how good KSU is, especially on defense - we'll find out on 9/24. People like to make generalizations based on last year, but that is meaningless relative to this year, especially for KSU's defense which put up very good numbers last year. The simple fact of the matter is that KSU may be better, especially on defense, than many people believe - how about Western Michigan beating NW yesterday? NW received points in both the major preseason polls and was thought to be a top-30 type team (and a contender for the b1g West crown) - the reality is that they lost to a MAC team!

 

[mn78psu83]

If anything, PSU's defense played more "inconsistently" - looking great on some plays and looking bad on others (especially in terms of "over-pursuing", taking overly-aggressive angles and losing back-side contain on "counter plays"). But this is to be expected from a defense with new starters that has not played a lot of football together - the reality is that you learn a lot more from making mistakes (i.e., "live and learn") than you do anything else. It is simply unrealistic to expect new starters and a unit that has not played much together to go out and play perfectly from the first whistle. Not going to happen.

I also liked the fact that the offense never seemed to go into a funk where they got down on themselves and it turned into a self-perpetuating cycle (i.e., lose all momentum). PSU clearly took over the game on both sides of the ball in the second half and steadily pulled away. Would it have been nice if they played even better? Sure. But PSU did not play nearly as poorly as they did in last year's opener against a very good and experienced defense. One last thing, we still don't know how good KSU is, especially on defense - we'll find out on 9/24. People like to make generalizations based on last year, but that is meaningless relative to this year, especially for KSU's defense which put up very good numbers last year. The simple fact of the matter is that KSU may be better, especially on defense, than many people believe - how about Western Michigan beating NW yesterday? NW received points in both the major preseason polls and was thought to be a top-30 type team (and a contender for the b1g West crown) - the reality is that they lost to a MAC team!

Professor Bushwood - do you like PSU's chances against the Allegheny County powerhouse?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Professor Bushwood - do you like PSU's chances against the Allegheny County powerhouse?

Tough one to call as I originally thought it might be a higher scoring affair, but no so sure now. ASWP's defense played very solid this week (172 Total Yards and 53 Rushing Yards), but it was against a DI-AA team, so who knows how good those numbers really are... OTOH, ASWP's offense looked awful and again that was against a DI-AA defense (261 Total Offensive Yards and 86 Rushing Yards). Score was 0-0 after first quarter and ASWP's first score was set up by a 31 yard punt return to Villanova's 32 - ASWP didn't crack the scoreboard until the 23rd minute of the game. ASWP's 2nd TD came in their last possession before the half and came off another short field set up by poor special teams play by Villanova (Villanova punter kicked a 34 yard punt which was returned 14 yards by ASWP returner to the Villanova 32 again). ASWP then returned the 2H KO 96 yards for a TD. ASWP's last TD was again set up by a 20 yard punt return setting up a "short-field" for ASWP on Villanova's side of the field. ASWP's 3 scoring drives were a 6-play 32 yard drive set up by a punt return, a 6-play 32 yard drive set up by a punt return, a 1-Play KO return of the 2H KO and a 10-play 49 yard drive set up by a punt return. ASWP also missed a 39-Yard FG and had a 47-Yard FG blocked.

ASWP essentially won the game entirely on Special Teams ringing up 174 yards in return yardage on 2 KO returns and 4 Punt Returns. Was essentially a defensive dominated contest which turned into punting / field position contest which Villanova lost especially in regards to "hidden yardage" on the special teams (a ton of "hidden yardage on ST to the tune of 174 yards a TD and all of the other scores being set up by ST-aided "short fields").

Next weeks game could be a low-scoring "defensive battle" based on what we saw from both teams this past week. If it turns into a field-position / punting contest, hard to say who would win, I would guess the team that is able to move the chains more consistently (or is able to make more ST plays - returns, blocked kicks, etc...). I'm going to call ST a wash especially given that the ASWP was 0-2 on FG attempts and they can't count on that type of return yardage against a FCS opponent. I think PSU has the advantage as ASWP's Offense only averaged 3.89 yards per play on 67 offensive plays against a DI-AA defense, which is off-the-charts awful. Whereas PSU's offense averaged 5.13 yards per play on 69 offensive plays against a pretty good, legit FCS defense.

Add it all up and I think PSU controls the field position and scores first which is huge in this type of game, so I'll give the edge to PSU as I think PSU's offense is much better than ASWP's based on what we saw this week.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

I had a chance to re-watch the game and focused on our offense. I agree that we might be compromising our playmakers for the sake of offensive simplicity (to help the OL). My original thoughts after watching the game live were that we did not strive to get the ball to Barkley in space, and of course we through the ball long too much. We'll need sustained drives to beat better teams.

But after looking at the OL performance more closely I saw the same issues that we had last year -- blown assignments or simply picking the wrong man to block, very poor TE blocking, little surge, etc. Mental breakdowns aside, the guys that have been in the system for a while just don't have the necessary lower body strength and athletic potential. We can blame the sanctions, but even the 3-4 star recruits that now have 3+ years in the system have not panned out. We did not recruit linemen who can move well.

So my expectations, and enthusiasm, have plummeted. I'm expecting blow-outs when we play OSU and Michigan, and that will hurt preceptions. Maybe we'll be OK in 2018 or so, but in the meantime mediocre play may hurt recruiting. This gap in our OL development is a nightmare. The good linemen that are coming in as freshman need to be ready immediately. We don't have 3 years for them to develop.

 

[rudedude]

I had a chance to re-watch the game and focused on our offense. I agree that we might be compromising our playmakers for the sake of offensive simplicity (to help the OL). My original thoughts after watching the game live were that we did not strive to get the ball to Barkley in space, and of course we through the ball long too much. We'll need sustained drives to beat better teams.

But after looking at the OL performance more closely I saw the same issues that we had last year -- blown assignments or simply picking the wrong man to block, very poor TE blocking, little surge, etc. Mental breakdowns aside, the guys that have been in the system for a while just don't have the necessary lower body strength and athletic potential. We can blame the sanctions, but even the 3-4 star recruits that now have 3+ years in the system have not panned out. We did not recruit linemen who can move well.

So my expectations, and enthusiasm, have plummeted. I'm expecting blow-outs when we play OSU and Michigan, and that will hurt preceptions. Maybe we'll be OK in 2018 or so, but in the meantime mediocre play may hurt recruiting. This gap in our OL development is a nightmare. The good linemen that are coming in as freshman need to be ready immediately. We don't have 3 years for them to develop.

So your saying after the first game that I should sell my tickets and not even watch any games the rest of the year and because your expectations and enthusiasm have plummeted I fully expect you to totally disappear from this board and no longer have to post your doom and gloom bullshit. Thank goodness!

 

[AWS1022]

So your saying after the first game that I should sell my tickets and not even watch any games the rest of the year and because your expectations and enthusiasm have plummeted I fully expect you to totally disappear from this board and no longer have to post your doom and gloom bullshit. Thank goodness!

And don't forget to get rid of your tickets for the next couple of years since this year is going to kill our recruiting so, unlike many other teams who have gone from bad to good, we have no hope because you can only recruit well if you win when you're talking about Penn State. All is lost

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I had a chance to re-watch the game and focused on our offense. I agree that we might be compromising our playmakers for the sake of offensive simplicity (to help the OL). My original thoughts after watching the game live were that we did not strive to get the ball to Barkley in space, and of course we through the ball long too much. We'll need sustained drives to beat better teams.

But after looking at the OL performance more closely I saw the same issues that we had last year -- blown assignments or simply picking the wrong man to block, very poor TE blocking, little surge, etc. Mental breakdowns aside, the guys that have been in the system for a while just don't have the necessary lower body strength and athletic potential. We can blame the sanctions, but even the 3-4 star recruits that now have 3+ years in the system have not panned out. We did not recruit linemen who can move well.

So my expectations, and enthusiasm, have plummeted. I'm expecting blow-outs when we play OSU and Michigan, and that will hurt preceptions. Maybe we'll be OK in 2018 or so, but in the meantime mediocre play may hurt recruiting. This gap in our OL development is a nightmare. The good linemen that are coming in as freshman need to be ready immediately. We don't have 3 years for them to develop.

Wow, we're all so shocked that this is your "opinion".....LMFAO!

 

[wbcincy]

And his qualifications?

If I watch the game and see many of the same things he's pointed out, then I feel I can trust what he's saying. I don't buy into the idea that a student of the game can't watch the tape and provide a meaningful analysis unless he's coached at a high level.

If he says things that I felt have no basis in reality based on what I saw, then I'd disregard his analysis. We all sit here and discuss game plan, coaching, talent levels, performance etc. Why does this poster have to provide credentials to do the same?

 

[fairgambit]

Hopefully, get some time to look over the defense later in week.


Anyway - - Couple overall thoughts, and some specifics and some personnel stuff.

1 - Not that this needs to be said to most folks here.....but the kid #26 is pretty damn good!

2 - Kent St. was VERY vanilla with their defensive fronts. VERY.

3 - Early in the game, KSU was doing some overloading with their fronts. Just about every time they did this, and created a bubble in their front, whomever was calling the plays for PSU (in their "check with the sideline" system) adjusted the play call to attack the bubble in the run game.
KUDOS to whomever was responsible

KSU obviously realized that as well - - - and they went completely to base standard gap defenses up front after the 1st quarter.

4 - Kent RARELY blitzed....and they DID NOT stack the line (until late in the game).

The few times they did blitz, it was generally with a safety through the box, or occasionally with a corner off of the slot. Only a couple all day with the LBers

They played a lot of 6 man boxes, and occasionally dropped a safety down to create a 7 man box......but that was it. And they DID NOT crowd the LOS up front until the 4th quarter (when they started to do some more exotic stuff)

5 - In pass protection, damn near every time KSU blitzed or ran any stunts/twists (which wasn't that often)....the PSU O Line was horrible.....HORRIBLE....at adjusting on the fly.

Reminded me of some of the old Wisconsin OLines - with those big ginormous run blockers, but guys who could not move their feet in pass protection (some folks will remember who some of the old PSU defenses - with guys like Tamba Hali - used to ABUSE Wisconsin with the pass rush)

I am quite sure that opposing defensive coordinators will take note - - - - and I would expect, beginning next week with Pitt, we will see a multitude of stunts/twists/blitzes in pass down situations.
If the PSU OLine doesn't make HUGE strides, it could get ugly.


Personnel wise:

OL: PSU had 13 possessions (not counting the end of game kneel down)

The starting group 70 Mahon - 52 Bates - 72 Gaia - 53 Dowrey - 59 Nelson...... played 5 of them

70-52-72-66(McGovern for Dowrey)-59.........played 2

70-55(Laurent for Bates)-72-53-59.........played 4

70-52-72-55 (Laurent for Dowrey)-59.......played 2 (Wright came in for Nelson for a few plays of this drive, when Nelson got banged up)

So, overall:
70 (Mahon) - all 13 series
52 (Bates) - 9 series
72 (Gaia) - all 13 series
53 (Dowrey) - 9 series
59 (Nelson) - all 13 series, aside from a couple snaps due to injury

55 (Laurent) - played 6
66 (McGovern) - played 2



When evaluating specific players - from just one game - it is tough - - - - since I don't know the KSU personnel well enough to know who had "the tougher assignments".
But, without knowing who among the KSU front may have been the better players:

Pass protection:

Against the vanilla rushes - was mostly pretty good.

At tackle:

70 - Beaten badly just the one time - but it was very costly
59 - Only one bad beat in protection against base rushes

Inside:

53 - was absolutely abused twice against base pass rushes. Not his strength (to say the least)

Otherwise, the group inside (52, 55, 66, 72) held up well against the base four man rush


Against blitz/stunt - ugly all around

As mentioned, KSU did not run many stunts or blitzes in the pass game.
A couple of times they just had PSU out-schemed with an extra unblockable man....but even with "even numbers", the PSU front was awful in adjusting assignments to the movement.

When they did blitz/stunt, I don't think there were many times the line handled it well at all - - - fortunately McSorley was able to escape from a couple....and throw away a couple more......keeping sacks to a minimum

Non-Linemen:

That kid - 26 - was very good in pass-pro. Had one poor blitz pick up, but otherwise was really good.
On the other hand, 88 was horrible......and it seemed to be as much a lack of effort/commitment as anything (more on 88 in the run game below)


Run Game:

Given how basic KSU played their fronts.....not a good effort.
I didn't expect a whole lot - since I suppose the KSU front 7 is reasonably good for a MAC team (my guess, after watching them, is they might be better than a couple of B1G fronts).....but time will tell.....and I didn't expect HUGE improvements from the O Line.
That said, still a rather disappointing effort.
If not for a great effort from that kid - 26 - the run game would have been a complete crapper.


Inside guys:

72 (and he should be given credit for being pretty consistent on his snaps all day - not a given for a guy making his first start at OC) was generally lousy. The OC has to make a lot of "finesse/technique" blocks that involve helping out on of the OGs, and then getting off to the 2nd level. He was BAD....which, I guess, should be expected given the unique characteristics of the position....which was all new to him.
In one-on-one situations, more often than not, he simply couldn't handle his guy - - - and was destroyed more than once

By far - - - and this was the case last year as well - - - the most fundamentally sound interior offensive lineman, and the most mobile and agile one, was 55 (Laurent) He still at times gets overpowered - he just seems to be a little short on strength and power - but he is nearly perfect in getting the correct leverage points and having the footwork to get to the right spots.

53 was very inconsistent in his run game blocking. A couple of complete "whiffs" that shoulda' resulted in big negative plays, 52, and 66 were both "ok" in the run game



Tackles:

59 was mostly solid in the run game - had one particularly bad beat, but otherwise OK.
70 was OK early on, but really struggled as the game progressed, particularly when he was assigned to block on the move

Non-Linemen:

88 had a horrendous day. He was asked to make some inside trap type blocks, and a couple times was on the edge for some outside runs.
I am not sure if he had any real solid achievements in the blocking game all day (including pass pro, which he was asked to do a few times as well)
Unfortunately, this was "deja vu all over again" (he and Kyle Carter may have had the worst blocking years ever for PSU tight ends in 2015). If PSU had another legit option right now, he would be in danger of spending a lot of time on the sidelines - I would think

Overall, run game FUBARS (plays where they just got abused/overwhelmed/whiffed):

Mahon - 4
Nelson - 1
Gaia - 3
Dowrey - 2
Bates - 1
Laurent - 0
McGovern - 0

Gesicki - 4 (and he wasn't asked to block all that much)





Aside from the one hold on 59 (which was a tough deal, the play was set up as an inside run, and when that was shut down, Barkley bounced outside and 59 was left with a bad leverage situation), I don't recall any live action penalties.....so a solid effort there


The backfield was basically 9 and 26 (6 had a couple snaps at RB)

26 may be better than even most Penn Staters think he is. He made 1, maybe 2 bad cuts/reads all day.....and he made more yards out of bad blocking than just about anyone could imagine.
The kid was impressive. (and the one chance to get involved in the pass game he made one heck of a catch)
If the O Line ever comes around, he is gonna' light things up

9, quite frankly, IMO, struggled with some things. Not to be unexpected - - - first start for the young man in an offensive scheme that is still relatively new.

But he also did "the little things" well - IMO:

Handled the line of scrimmage well.
Most of his reads in the run game were proper (really, only one or two that were even questionable).
He seemed to get passes of relatively quickly (he didn't have a lot of pressure - so that sure helped.....and the defensive scheme was pretty simple)

What he is not - or at least what he didn't show on Saturday:

He is a willing runner - but not a dangerous runner. Based on that performance, he will not force any defensive coordinators to gameplan to stop his run game
Either by design, or by execution, the pass game was very simple. Unfortunately, with what was shown on Saturday, 9 doesn't have the skill set to scare any defense within the passing game that was utilized.
I am not sure if the simplicity of the pass game was purely an attempt to keep things limited - or it was an attempt to "not ask 9 to do things he isn't capable of doing"......but I think it is probably a bit of both.
We will certainly know better as the season goes along - but for now, at the least, QB play is a huge question mark going into the Pitt game.

Unfortunately, the limitations on offense, and at QB, stifled any attempts to fully utilize the guiys outside.
We mostly saw what we already knew:
12 is a darn good receiver
5 can be very good - if he gets a chance to contribute (which he couldn't last year, due to the limitations of the offense, and couldn't on Saturday - as the inside receiver role was all but non-existent) He did run a nice route and make a nice catch for the TD.....but this kid is legit, and its a real shame if PSU can't find a way to get him at least 4-5 balls per game
It was nice to see 3 get a chance to make a big play....and 13 had a couple moments (both memorable and forgettable)......but there just were not enough opportunities out there to see where 10, 84, 11 might fit into the mix.
I think we all feel there is a lot of talent, and a lot of depth of talent out there. Hopefully we can find (or develop) a "trigger man" to fully utilize them.
Time will tell
.

I am always impressed when someone on this board takes the time to analyze any topic in a serious way. I don't agree with all you said but it adds value and you are to be commended.

 

[Mudge1026]

Hopefully, get some time to look over the defense later in week.


Anyway - - Couple overall thoughts, and some specifics and some personnel stuff.

1 - Not that this needs to be said to most folks here.....but the kid #26 is pretty damn good!

2 - Kent St. was VERY vanilla with their defensive fronts. VERY.

3 - Early in the game, KSU was doing some overloading with their fronts. Just about every time they did this, and created a bubble in their front, whomever was calling the plays for PSU (in their "check with the sideline" system) adjusted the play call to attack the bubble in the run game.
KUDOS to whomever was responsible

KSU obviously realized that as well - - - and they went completely to base standard gap defenses up front after the 1st quarter.

4 - Kent RARELY blitzed....and they DID NOT stack the line (until late in the game).

The few times they did blitz, it was generally with a safety through the box, or occasionally with a corner off of the slot. Only a couple all day with the LBers

They played a lot of 6 man boxes, and occasionally dropped a safety down to create a 7 man box......but that was it. And they DID NOT crowd the LOS up front until the 4th quarter (when they started to do some more exotic stuff)

5 - In pass protection, damn near every time KSU blitzed or ran any stunts/twists (which wasn't that often)....the PSU O Line was horrible.....HORRIBLE....at adjusting on the fly.

Reminded me of some of the old Wisconsin OLines - with those big ginormous run blockers, but guys who could not move their feet in pass protection (some folks will remember who some of the old PSU defenses - with guys like Tamba Hali - used to ABUSE Wisconsin with the pass rush)

I am quite sure that opposing defensive coordinators will take note - - - - and I would expect, beginning next week with Pitt, we will see a multitude of stunts/twists/blitzes in pass down situations.
If the PSU OLine doesn't make HUGE strides, it could get ugly.


Personnel wise:

OL: PSU had 13 possessions (not counting the end of game kneel down)

The starting group 70 Mahon - 52 Bates - 72 Gaia - 53 Dowrey - 59 Nelson...... played 5 of them

70-52-72-66(McGovern for Dowrey)-59.........played 2

70-55(Laurent for Bates)-72-53-59.........played 4

70-52-72-55 (Laurent for Dowrey)-59.......played 2 (Wright came in for Nelson for a few plays of this drive, when Nelson got banged up)

So, overall:
70 (Mahon) - all 13 series
52 (Bates) - 9 series
72 (Gaia) - all 13 series
53 (Dowrey) - 9 series
59 (Nelson) - all 13 series, aside from a couple snaps due to injury

55 (Laurent) - played 6
66 (McGovern) - played 2



When evaluating specific players - from just one game - it is tough - - - - since I don't know the KSU personnel well enough to know who had "the tougher assignments".
But, without knowing who among the KSU front may have been the better players:

Pass protection:

Against the vanilla rushes - was mostly pretty good.

At tackle:

70 - Beaten badly just the one time - but it was very costly
59 - Only one bad beat in protection against base rushes

Inside:

53 - was absolutely abused twice against base pass rushes. Not his strength (to say the least)

Otherwise, the group inside (52, 55, 66, 72) held up well against the base four man rush


Against blitz/stunt - ugly all around

As mentioned, KSU did not run many stunts or blitzes in the pass game.
A couple of times they just had PSU out-schemed with an extra unblockable man....but even with "even numbers", the PSU front was awful in adjusting assignments to the movement.

When they did blitz/stunt, I don't think there were many times the line handled it well at all - - - fortunately McSorley was able to escape from a couple....and throw away a couple more......keeping sacks to a minimum

Non-Linemen:

That kid - 26 - was very good in pass-pro. Had one poor blitz pick up, but otherwise was really good.
On the other hand, 88 was horrible......and it seemed to be as much a lack of effort/commitment as anything (more on 88 in the run game below)


Run Game:

Given how basic KSU played their fronts.....not a good effort.
I didn't expect a whole lot - since I suppose the KSU front 7 is reasonably good for a MAC team (my guess, after watching them, is they might be better than a couple of B1G fronts).....but time will tell.....and I didn't expect HUGE improvements from the O Line.
That said, still a rather disappointing effort.
If not for a great effort from that kid - 26 - the run game would have been a complete crapper.


Inside guys:

72 (and he should be given credit for being pretty consistent on his snaps all day - not a given for a guy making his first start at OC) was generally lousy. The OC has to make a lot of "finesse/technique" blocks that involve helping out on of the OGs, and then getting off to the 2nd level. He was BAD....which, I guess, should be expected given the unique characteristics of the position....which was all new to him.
In one-on-one situations, more often than not, he simply couldn't handle his guy - - - and was destroyed more than once

By far - - - and this was the case last year as well - - - the most fundamentally sound interior offensive lineman, and the most mobile and agile one, was 55 (Laurent) He still at times gets overpowered - he just seems to be a little short on strength and power - but he is nearly perfect in getting the correct leverage points and having the footwork to get to the right spots.

53 was very inconsistent in his run game blocking. A couple of complete "whiffs" that shoulda' resulted in big negative plays, 52, and 66 were both "ok" in the run game



Tackles:

59 was mostly solid in the run game - had one particularly bad beat, but otherwise OK.
70 was OK early on, but really struggled as the game progressed, particularly when he was assigned to block on the move

Non-Linemen:

88 had a horrendous day. He was asked to make some inside trap type blocks, and a couple times was on the edge for some outside runs.
I am not sure if he had any real solid achievements in the blocking game all day (including pass pro, which he was asked to do a few times as well)
Unfortunately, this was "deja vu all over again" (he and Kyle Carter may have had the worst blocking years ever for PSU tight ends in 2015). If PSU had another legit option right now, he would be in danger of spending a lot of time on the sidelines - I would think

Overall, run game FUBARS (plays where they just got abused/overwhelmed/whiffed):

Mahon - 4
Nelson - 1
Gaia - 3
Dowrey - 2
Bates - 1
Laurent - 0
McGovern - 0

Gesicki - 4 (and he wasn't asked to block all that much)





Aside from the one hold on 59 (which was a tough deal, the play was set up as an inside run, and when that was shut down, Barkley bounced outside and 59 was left with a bad leverage situation), I don't recall any live action penalties.....so a solid effort there


The backfield was basically 9 and 26 (6 had a couple snaps at RB)

26 may be better than even most Penn Staters think he is. He made 1, maybe 2 bad cuts/reads all day.....and he made more yards out of bad blocking than just about anyone could imagine.
The kid was impressive. (and the one chance to get involved in the pass game he made one heck of a catch)
If the O Line ever comes around, he is gonna' light things up

9, quite frankly, IMO, struggled with some things. Not to be unexpected - - - first start for the young man in an offensive scheme that is still relatively new.

But he also did "the little things" well - IMO:

Handled the line of scrimmage well.
Most of his reads in the run game were proper (really, only one or two that were even questionable).
He seemed to get passes of relatively quickly (he didn't have a lot of pressure - so that sure helped.....and the defensive scheme was pretty simple)

What he is not - or at least what he didn't show on Saturday:

He is a willing runner - but not a dangerous runner. Based on that performance, he will not force any defensive coordinators to gameplan to stop his run game
Either by design, or by execution, the pass game was very simple. Unfortunately, with what was shown on Saturday, 9 doesn't have the skill set to scare any defense within the passing game that was utilized.
I am not sure if the simplicity of the pass game was purely an attempt to keep things limited - or it was an attempt to "not ask 9 to do things he isn't capable of doing"......but I think it is probably a bit of both.
We will certainly know better as the season goes along - but for now, at the least, QB play is a huge question mark going into the Pitt game.

Unfortunately, the limitations on offense, and at QB, stifled any attempts to fully utilize the guiys outside.
We mostly saw what we already knew:
12 is a darn good receiver
5 can be very good - if he gets a chance to contribute (which he couldn't last year, due to the limitations of the offense, and couldn't on Saturday - as the inside receiver role was all but non-existent) He did run a nice route and make a nice catch for the TD.....but this kid is legit, and its a real shame if PSU can't find a way to get him at least 4-5 balls per game
It was nice to see 3 get a chance to make a big play....and 13 had a couple moments (both memorable and forgettable)......but there just were not enough opportunities out there to see where 10, 84, 11 might fit into the mix.
I think we all feel there is a lot of talent, and a lot of depth of talent out there. Hopefully we can find (or develop) a "trigger man" to fully utilize them.
Time will tell
.

Been with BWI seemingly forever and must say your analysis of the game and the critiqueing of the individual players in such a short period of time is rather remarkable. Well done my friend. I don't post that much over here on the free board, all the time on premium. Always wondered why some of you dont post on both boards? You, Judge, Franklin Restores the Tradition just to name a few should consider it. The guys over on the premium board would enjoy your analysis.

 

[Mudge1026]

Tough one to call as I originally thought it might be a higher scoring affair, but no so sure now. ASWP's defense played very solid this week (172 Total Yards and 53 Rushing Yards), but it was against a DI-AA team, so who knows how good those numbers really are... OTOH, ASWP's offense looked awful and again that was against a DI-AA defense (261 Total Offensive Yards and 86 Rushing Yards). Score was 0-0 after first quarter and ASWP's first score was set up by a 31 yard punt return to Villanova's 32 - ASWP didn't crack the scoreboard until the 23rd minute of the game. ASWP's 2nd TD came in their last possession before the half and came off another short field set up by poor special teams play by Villanova (Villanova punter kicked a 34 yard punt which was returned 14 yards by ASWP returner to the Villanova 32 again). ASWP then returned the 2H KO 96 yards for a TD. ASWP's last TD was again set up by a 20 yard punt return setting up a "short-field" for ASWP on Villanova's side of the field. ASWP's 3 scoring drives were a 6-play 32 yard drive set up by a punt return, a 6-play 32 yard drive set up by a punt return, a 1-Play KO return of the 2H KO and a 10-play 49 yard drive set up by a punt return. ASWP also missed a 39-Yard FG and had a 47-Yard FG blocked.

ASWP essentially won the game entirely on Special Teams ringing up 174 yards in return yardage on 2 KO returns and 4 Punt Returns. Was essentially a defensive dominated contest which turned into punting / field position contest which Villanova lost especially in regards to "hidden yardage" on the special teams (a ton of "hidden yardage on ST to the tune of 174 yards a TD and all of the other scores being set up by ST-aided "short fields").

Next weeks game could be a low-scoring "defensive battle" based on what we saw from both teams this past week. If it turns into a field-position / punting contest, hard to say who would win, I would guess the team that is able to move the chains more consistently (or is able to make more ST plays - returns, blocked kicks, etc...). I'm going to call ST a wash especially given that the ASWP was 0-2 on FG attempts and they can't count on that type of return yardage against a FCS opponent. I think PSU has the advantage as ASWP's Offense only averaged 3.89 yards per play on 67 offensive plays against a DI-AA defense, which is off-the-charts awful. Whereas PSU's offense averaged 5.13 yards per play on 69 offensive plays against a pretty good, legit FCS defense.

Add it all up and I think PSU controls the field position and scores first which is huge in this type of game, so I'll give the edge to PSU as I think PSU's offense is much better than ASWP's based on what we saw this week.

Always look forward to your analysis. Didnt know you previously posted under the Bush........ handle. Didnt put two and two together until I noticed other posters referencing the old name. When you disappeared I was really surprised and disappointed, but very glad to have you back, if you ever left, lol.

 

[AWS1022]

If I watch the game and see many of the same things he's pointed out, then I feel I can trust what he's saying. I don't buy into the idea that a student of the game can't watch the tape and provide a meaningful analysis unless he's coached at a high level.

If he says things that I felt have no basis in reality based on what I saw, then I'd disregard his analysis. We all sit here and discuss game plan, coaching, talent levels, performance etc. Why does this poster have to provide credentials to do the same?

I just get tired of reading posters who act like they're seeing stuff out coaches aren't or don't see. If you're going to second guess a coach, you ought to be more qualified than that coach and I seriously doubt there's anyone on here who's more qualified than Franklin and his staff.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

I just get tired of reading posters who act like they're seeing stuff out coaches aren't or don't see. If you're going to second guess a coach, you ought to be more qualified than that coach and I seriously doubt there's anyone on here who's more qualified than Franklin and his staff.

At no point.....NONE......PERIOD......did I in any way second guess any coaching decision

So, if your comments are directed elsewhere - more power to ya'

If not - if they were directed to the OP:

Shut up until you know what you're talking abouy

 

[AWS1022]

At no point.....NONE......PERIOD......did I in any way second guess any coaching decision

So, if your comments are directed elsewhere - more power to ya'

If not - if they were directed to the OP:

Shut up until you know what you're talking abouy

Lighten up Francis, I was talking in general.

 

[blion72]

Hopefully, get some time to look over the defense later in week.


Anyway - - Couple overall thoughts, and some specifics and some personnel stuff.

1 - Not that this needs to be said to most folks here.....but the kid #26 is pretty damn good!

2 - Kent St. was VERY vanilla with their defensive fronts. VERY.

3 - Early in the game, KSU was doing some overloading with their fronts. Just about every time they did this, and created a bubble in their front, whomever was calling the plays for PSU (in their "check with the sideline" system) adjusted the play call to attack the bubble in the run game.
KUDOS to whomever was responsible

KSU obviously realized that as well - - - and they went completely to base standard gap defenses up front after the 1st quarter.

4 - Kent RARELY blitzed....and they DID NOT stack the line (until late in the game).

The few times they did blitz, it was generally with a safety through the box, or occasionally with a corner off of the slot. Only a couple all day with the LBers

They played a lot of 6 man boxes, and occasionally dropped a safety down to create a 7 man box......but that was it. And they DID NOT crowd the LOS up front until the 4th quarter (when they started to do some more exotic stuff)

5 - In pass protection, damn near every time KSU blitzed or ran any stunts/twists (which wasn't that often)....the PSU O Line was horrible.....HORRIBLE....at adjusting on the fly.

Reminded me of some of the old Wisconsin OLines - with those big ginormous run blockers, but guys who could not move their feet in pass protection (some folks will remember who some of the old PSU defenses - with guys like Tamba Hali - used to ABUSE Wisconsin with the pass rush)

I am quite sure that opposing defensive coordinators will take note - - - - and I would expect, beginning next week with Pitt, we will see a multitude of stunts/twists/blitzes in pass down situations.
If the PSU OLine doesn't make HUGE strides, it could get ugly.


Personnel wise:

OL: PSU had 13 possessions (not counting the end of game kneel down)

The starting group 70 Mahon - 52 Bates - 72 Gaia - 53 Dowrey - 59 Nelson...... played 5 of them

70-52-72-66(McGovern for Dowrey)-59.........played 2

70-55(Laurent for Bates)-72-53-59.........played 4

70-52-72-55 (Laurent for Dowrey)-59.......played 2 (Wright came in for Nelson for a few plays of this drive, when Nelson got banged up)

So, overall:
70 (Mahon) - all 13 series
52 (Bates) - 9 series
72 (Gaia) - all 13 series
53 (Dowrey) - 9 series
59 (Nelson) - all 13 series, aside from a couple snaps due to injury

55 (Laurent) - played 6
66 (McGovern) - played 2



When evaluating specific players - from just one game - it is tough - - - - since I don't know the KSU personnel well enough to know who had "the tougher assignments".
But, without knowing who among the KSU front may have been the better players:

Pass protection:

Against the vanilla rushes - was mostly pretty good.

At tackle:

70 - Beaten badly just the one time - but it was very costly
59 - Only one bad beat in protection against base rushes

Inside:

53 - was absolutely abused twice against base pass rushes. Not his strength (to say the least)

Otherwise, the group inside (52, 55, 66, 72) held up well against the base four man rush


Against blitz/stunt - ugly all around

As mentioned, KSU did not run many stunts or blitzes in the pass game.
A couple of times they just had PSU out-schemed with an extra unblockable man....but even with "even numbers", the PSU front was awful in adjusting assignments to the movement.

When they did blitz/stunt, I don't think there were many times the line handled it well at all - - - fortunately McSorley was able to escape from a couple....and throw away a couple more......keeping sacks to a minimum

Non-Linemen:

That kid - 26 - was very good in pass-pro. Had one poor blitz pick up, but otherwise was really good.
On the other hand, 88 was horrible......and it seemed to be as much a lack of effort/commitment as anything (more on 88 in the run game below)


Run Game:

Given how basic KSU played their fronts.....not a good effort.
I didn't expect a whole lot - since I suppose the KSU front 7 is reasonably good for a MAC team (my guess, after watching them, is they might be better than a couple of B1G fronts).....but time will tell.....and I didn't expect HUGE improvements from the O Line.
That said, still a rather disappointing effort.
If not for a great effort from that kid - 26 - the run game would have been a complete crapper.


Inside guys:

72 (and he should be given credit for being pretty consistent on his snaps all day - not a given for a guy making his first start at OC) was generally lousy. The OC has to make a lot of "finesse/technique" blocks that involve helping out on of the OGs, and then getting off to the 2nd level. He was BAD....which, I guess, should be expected given the unique characteristics of the position....which was all new to him.
In one-on-one situations, more often than not, he simply couldn't handle his guy - - - and was destroyed more than once

By far - - - and this was the case last year as well - - - the most fundamentally sound interior offensive lineman, and the most mobile and agile one, was 55 (Laurent) He still at times gets overpowered - he just seems to be a little short on strength and power - but he is nearly perfect in getting the correct leverage points and having the footwork to get to the right spots.

53 was very inconsistent in his run game blocking. A couple of complete "whiffs" that shoulda' resulted in big negative plays, 52, and 66 were both "ok" in the run game



Tackles:

59 was mostly solid in the run game - had one particularly bad beat, but otherwise OK.
70 was OK early on, but really struggled as the game progressed, particularly when he was assigned to block on the move

Non-Linemen:

88 had a horrendous day. He was asked to make some inside trap type blocks, and a couple times was on the edge for some outside runs.
I am not sure if he had any real solid achievements in the blocking game all day (including pass pro, which he was asked to do a few times as well)
Unfortunately, this was "deja vu all over again" (he and Kyle Carter may have had the worst blocking years ever for PSU tight ends in 2015). If PSU had another legit option right now, he would be in danger of spending a lot of time on the sidelines - I would think

Overall, run game FUBARS (plays where they just got abused/overwhelmed/whiffed):

Mahon - 4
Nelson - 1
Gaia - 3
Dowrey - 2
Bates - 1
Laurent - 0
McGovern - 0

Gesicki - 4 (and he wasn't asked to block all that much)





Aside from the one hold on 59 (which was a tough deal, the play was set up as an inside run, and when that was shut down, Barkley bounced outside and 59 was left with a bad leverage situation), I don't recall any live action penalties.....so a solid effort there


The backfield was basically 9 and 26 (6 had a couple snaps at RB)

26 may be better than even most Penn Staters think he is. He made 1, maybe 2 bad cuts/reads all day.....and he made more yards out of bad blocking than just about anyone could imagine.
The kid was impressive. (and the one chance to get involved in the pass game he made one heck of a catch)
If the O Line ever comes around, he is gonna' light things up

9, quite frankly, IMO, struggled with some things. Not to be unexpected - - - first start for the young man in an offensive scheme that is still relatively new.

But he also did "the little things" well - IMO:

Handled the line of scrimmage well.
Most of his reads in the run game were proper (really, only one or two that were even questionable).
He seemed to get passes of relatively quickly (he didn't have a lot of pressure - so that sure helped.....and the defensive scheme was pretty simple)

What he is not - or at least what he didn't show on Saturday:

He is a willing runner - but not a dangerous runner. Based on that performance, he will not force any defensive coordinators to gameplan to stop his run game
Either by design, or by execution, the pass game was very simple. Unfortunately, with what was shown on Saturday, 9 doesn't have the skill set to scare any defense within the passing game that was utilized.
I am not sure if the simplicity of the pass game was purely an attempt to keep things limited - or it was an attempt to "not ask 9 to do things he isn't capable of doing"......but I think it is probably a bit of both.
We will certainly know better as the season goes along - but for now, at the least, QB play is a huge question mark going into the Pitt game.

Unfortunately, the limitations on offense, and at QB, stifled any attempts to fully utilize the guiys outside.
We mostly saw what we already knew:
12 is a darn good receiver
5 can be very good - if he gets a chance to contribute (which he couldn't last year, due to the limitations of the offense, and couldn't on Saturday - as the inside receiver role was all but non-existent) He did run a nice route and make a nice catch for the TD.....but this kid is legit, and its a real shame if PSU can't find a way to get him at least 4-5 balls per game
It was nice to see 3 get a chance to make a big play....and 13 had a couple moments (both memorable and forgettable)......but there just were not enough opportunities out there to see where 10, 84, 11 might fit into the mix.
I think we all feel there is a lot of talent, and a lot of depth of talent out there. Hopefully we can find (or develop) a "trigger man" to fully utilize them.
Time will tell
.

thanks for the good analysis. the OL experience certainly has not translated to results on the field. i have to think we are going to see some of these guys replaced as the season moves on. if they are not replaced, it doesn't say much for our OL recruiting.

you mentioned that Trace is not going to scare any DCs into scheming PSU different. he handles the run decisions very well, but isnt exactly a speed merchant. Tommy Stevens may be faster - not sure. watching the Texas v ND game you could see QBs on both sides with wheels and the impact that had on the DEF style.

 

[wbcincy]

I just get tired of reading posters who act like they're seeing stuff out coaches aren't or don't see. If you're going to second guess a coach, you ought to be more qualified than that coach and I seriously doubt there's anyone on here who's more qualified than Franklin and his staff.

I hear you, just not the way I took the OP's post

 

[AWS1022]

I hear you, just not the way I took the OP's post

I wasn't so much talking about the OP as I was in general. There are like four different threads on here posting "expert" analysis on the game. I think we pay people for that. This board has more Monday morning QB's than any other board I've seen for some reason.

 

[chrisrn1965]

If I watch the game and see many of the same things he's pointed out, then I feel I can trust what he's saying. I don't buy into the idea that a student of the game can't watch the tape and provide a meaningful analysis unless he's coached at a high level.

If he says things that I felt have no basis in reality based on what I saw, then I'd disregard his analysis. We all sit here and discuss game plan, coaching, talent levels, performance etc. Why does this poster have to provide credentials to do the same?

Exactly. The purpose of a message board is for fans to discuss. If a poster takes the time to make a thoughtful analysis I appreciate it.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

thanks for the good analysis. the OL experience certainly has not translated to results on the field. i have to think we are going to see some of these guys replaced as the season moves on. if they are not replaced, it doesn't say much for our OL recruiting.

you mentioned that Trace is not going to scare any DCs into scheming PSU different. he handles the run decisions very well, but isnt exactly a speed merchant. Tommy Stevens may be faster - not sure. watching the Texas v ND game you could see QBs on both sides with wheels and the impact that had on the DEF style.

Clearly, and I (and others) have been saying this for some time;
The existing upperclass OLinemen simply are not very talented
Does that mean they can improve with maturity/experience? Yes, absolutely, and they have
Are they better than 2014 2015? Yes
Are they better than throwing a more talented - higher ceiling - freshman out there? Probably

But the first chance we will have since 2013, to have a "good" O Line will be 2017 ......... And that was clear to see back in 2014

That is why - IMO - expectations for the offense, no matter who the OC and QB is, no matter how talented the skill guys are, should be tempered until then

 

[masterbaker65]

Clearly, and I (and others) have been saying this for some time;
The existing upperclass OLinemen simply are not very talented
Does that mean they can improve with maturity/experience? Yes, absolutely, and they have
Are they better than 2014 2015? Yes
Are they better than throwing a more talented - higher ceiling - freshman out there? Probably

But the first chance we will have since 2013, to have a "good" O Line will be 2017 ......... And that was clear to see back in 2014

That is why - IMO - expectations for the offense, no matter who the OC and QB is, no matter how talented the skill guys are, should be tempered until then

Think you're dead on about Oline. It will take till 2017 for significant improvement. We also need a blocking TE. Thanks for tha analysis. Good read!