Interesting post regarding our new OC

[Obliviax]

below. I often think teams struggle with changing their philosophy when they have talent. I think there has to be a bit of swagger and confidence. I am a bit concerned that OC Kotelnicki can change his stripes with talent exceeding most teams he'll be facing. I think you have to give kudos to Michigan who changed to an offensive model that is more "here we are, try to stop us" mentality. Against us, they ran on every single play in the second half. Why? Because they knew this model would work, was less risky, and would lead to victory. They also stuck to their running game against tOSU. What is common is that these are the only two games where UM faced talent that was similar to theirs.

I feel like CJF trying trick plays exposes PSU's lack of confidence. If you have a good offense, you don't need to "trick" the defense.

Can we make that change?

 

[voltz99]

Michigan did not change until they were forced to change. 3-4 years ago most of their fans were calling for harbaugh to be fired and they eventually took away the play calling from gattis.

Nothing interesting in the post. Kotelnicki does more with less and PSU has too much talent to do more with less????

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Consider the source of the original quote. The Mistress of convoluted reasoning. She fits into the glass is more than half confused.

If he gets the most out of what he has and that has been a lot out of a little. Then reason says he gets way more when he has a lot.

Compare that to the handcuffs Yurcich put on the O. Getting the least out of a lot.

I for one love the change. Perhaps Franklin won't have that feeling that he has to pull tricks out to save the day from his offenses strengths being sabotaged by a recalcitrant and unrelenting rouge OC.

 

[Wesauking Lion]

below. I often think teams struggle with changing their philosophy when they have talent. I think there has to be a bit of swagger and confidence. I am a bit concerned that OC Kotelnicki can change his stripes with talent exceeding most teams he'll be facing. I think you have to give kudos to Michigan who changed to an offensive model that is more "here we are, try to stop us" mentality. Against us, they ran on every single play in the second half. Why? Because they knew this model would work, was less risky, and would lead to victory. They also stuck to their running game against tOSU. What is common is that these are the only two games where UM faced talent that was similar to theirs.

I feel like CJF trying trick plays exposes PSU's lack of confidence. If you have a good offense, you don't need to "trick" the defense.

Can we make that change?

View embedded media

You are 100% correct of CJF using trick plays in the first half.... in wierd situations, his 4th down nonsense... it is all desparation. He knows he is outgunned in the middle of the first half... PSU plays to keep it close, not to win. Its the CJF way... has been for 10 yrs. Ignore the problems, blame others.... sell those cars

 

[voltz99]

You are 100% correct of CJF using trick plays in the first half.... in wierd situations, his 4th down nonsense... it is all desparation. He knows he is outgunned in the middle of the first half... PSU plays to keep it close, not to win. Its the CJF way... has been for 10 yrs. Ignore the problems, blame others.... sell those cars

Who coached the Toledo loss or the 6-4 Iowa game?

 

[BOSCO2]

I guess now he's in a position to do more with more.

 

[PSUSignore]

Michigan's change this year was mostly because on the first 2 series their right tackle showed he could barely slow our edge rush and McCarthy was running for his life on every passing play. Since we had a full season of showing our offense wasn't very dangerous, they figured doing nothing but running the ball was low risk low reward since they already had the lead in the game. It wasn't really about adjusting to try to exploit our defensive vulnerabilities, but more about masking their offensive deficiency in that matchup. Our defense didn't do a terrible job after the adjustment except for a couple of plays, which isn't surprising given our offense didn't give them any help. If we had any sort of a competent offense, that plan fails and we win that game. But we let them get away with it because we couldn't move the ball effectively.

 

[LandoComando]

Michigan's change this year was mostly because on the first 2 series their right tackle showed he could barely slow our edge rush and McCarthy was running for his life on every passing play. Since we had a full season of showing our offense wasn't very dangerous, they figured doing nothing but running the ball was low risk low reward since they already had the lead in the game. It wasn't really about adjusting to try to exploit our defensive vulnerabilities, but more about masking their offensive deficiency in that matchup. Our defense didn't do a terrible job after the adjustment except for a couple of plays, which isn't surprising given our offense didn't give them any help. If we had any sort of a competent offense, that plan fails and we win that game. But we let them get away with it because we couldn't move the ball effectively.

Agreed but it was the right adjustment. They knew we had a matchup advantage. We didn't adapt at all.

 

[Texas Lion]

People act like the trick plays is all AK does. No, like anything else, it is what the media shows us so everyone believes it. He is very strong with 2 back and the TE....what do we have at PSU, present and future years of 4/5 star backs!! 5 Star TE's.
Don't believe everything you listen to. The guy wins with less, doesn't mean he is going to change his ideas because he has more....it will just make what he does better.

 

[LuvDaLions]

I guess now he's in a position to do more with more.

As long as he doesn't do "Less with more" I'll be happy.

 

[Wesauking Lion]

Who coached the Toledo loss or the 6-4 Iowa game?

Joe has been dead for over a decade. He is not a part of the topic.

 

[voltz99]

Joe has been dead for over a decade. He is not a part of the topic.

If you were ok with a 9-3 career coach then why complain when a coach goes 10-2?

 

[LandoComando]

Joe has been dead for over a decade. He is not a part of the topic.

Unfortunately he's the one that convinced everyone to lower expectations for him and some are still doing it.

 

[voltz99]

Joe has been dead for over a decade. He is not a part of the topic.

Yet you are still comparing coaches to someone who has been dead for 10 years. If you consider joe the best ever, do you really expect current or future coaches to be better?

 

[Wesauking Lion]

If you were ok with a 9-3 career coach then why complain when a coach goes 10-2?

Who did we beat? Honestly... what was our great win... Iowa? We win by the other team getting tired in the second half...

 

[BBHorn86]

Who did we beat? Honestly... what was our great win... Iowa? We win by the other team getting tired in the second half...

There are only how many teams with 10 wins in the country? How many of the playoff teams beat top flight 10 wins teams week in and week out? You play the schedule you play but you still need to show up and take care of business. OK so we didn't beat Michigan or Ohio State, but Michigan still hasn't lost and Ohio State only lost to them. For crying out loud would you rather be 7-5 or 6-6 and say we have a signature win over Iowa? Not many of the top 12 team in the country have big signature wins, if they did, just like us, they along with us would be in the four team playoff.

 

[Lion_Backer]

Yet you are still comparing coaches to someone who has been dead for 10 years. If you consider joe the best ever, do you really expect current or future coaches to be better?

A couple of thoughts.

First off, Joe led PSU to 2 MNC and 5 undefeated and untied seasons during his career as our head football coach. If CJF had one of those types of seasons, that would alleviate a lot of the concerns of a sizeable portion of our alumni fanbase.

Until he does......

When you expect the PSU football fan base to pay for the entire athletic budget less men's basketball, there is going to be expectations of B1G championships and competing for national championships.

 

[Obliviax]

There are only how many teams with 10 wins in the country? How many of the playoff teams beat top flight 10 wins teams week in and week out? You play the schedule you play but you still need to show up and take care of business. OK so we didn't beat Michigan or Ohio State, but Michigan still hasn't lost and Ohio State only lost to them. For crying out loud would you rather be 7-5 or 6-6 and say we have a signature win over Iowa? Not many of the top 12 team in the country have big signature wins, if they did, just like us, they along with us would be in the four team playoff.

Good question. I count 18 in the top 25. But several aren't in the same league: SMU, Liberty, Tulane and James Madison. So you really have 14.

 

[tboyer]

The thing to keep in mind is that the top of the B1G plays very, very good defense. 95% of the offensive coordinators out there haven't seen a lot (or even any) defenses with the kind of athleticism and coaching that Ohio State, Michigan and PSU had this year. It's not normal to have three of the nation's top defenses in the same division.

Scheming is just really different when teams have future NFL players in the secondary, at LB and at DT and DE, and coaches who know what to do with that talent,. 90-95% of college football teams are not going to be able to do much.

Look at Maryland. They recruit very good offensive skill players and I'd argue it's a well coached offense. They hang 42 on Virginia, 44 on Indiana, 42 on Rutgers but against PSU, OSU and UM it's 17, ,15, 24 and a lot of those points were scored late against backups. Maryland can hire talented offensive coaches till the cows come home, but until they get a big time O-line program going, all the scheming in the world won't make a dent.

So doing more with less sounds nice but I don't really think anything's going to change at PSU without some VERY different kind of athletes at wideout and continued excellence at running back and TE and then of course a first rate QB. It is hard, hard to put all that together. Maybe the biggest thing a new O-coordinator can do is persuade HS recruits that he can work magic with them -- and that helps bring in the players who can compete at the highest level.

 

[voltz99]

A couple of thoughts.

First off, Joe led PSU to 2 MNC and 5 undefeated and untied seasons during his career as our head football coach. If CJF had one of those types of seasons, that would alleviate a lot of the concerns of a sizeable portion of our alumni fanbase.

Until he does......

When you expect the PSU football fan base to pay for the entire athletic budget less men's basketball, there is going to be expectations of B1G championships and competing for national championships.

Over 40 years. Joe also was playing Army, Navy, Airforce, Maryland, BC, Rutgers, Pitt, Temple, Syracuse, Random MAC school, and Notre Dame. NO OSU or Michigan. Go figure. Joe had a losing career record vs OSU and MIchigan.

Pennsylvania also had double the amount of talent back then. There was also no scholarship limit when Joe started. The big schools could stockpile talent which increased their talent and took talent from other schools. During sanctions the experts considered going from 85 scholarships to 65 was a death sentence. Do you think having 100+ on scholarship was possibly an advantage? Initially there was no limit. Around 79 they had a limit of 105.

Maybe your expectations should be directed at all the other teams less men's basketball. I would be ok with eliminating 90% of those sports. Any sports that does not compete at a high level or at least break even I would ditch. I would keep football, basketball, wrestling, hockey, lacrosse and then 5 womens sports. I guess volleyball, soccer, and whatever. I would have to check the numbers on womens.

Does PSU have to be in the B10 in every sport? Notre Dame is in the acc for football, B10 for ice hockey. I think Arizona state is in the B10 in ice hockey. It makes no sense to be in the B10 in sports with zero fans and no revenue. Baseball, Soccer, girls field hockey, girls lacrosse, and so on travel across country to play in front of 120 family members and media in empty stadiums. Ditch the big conferences for non revenue sports and play local teams like Temple, pitt, rutgers, Syracuse, Maryland, SJU, Lasalle, Villanova, Penn. Playing local teams would actually increase attendance since both sets of fans could attend.

 

[voltz99]

Who did we beat? Honestly... what was our great win... Iowa? We win by the other team getting tired in the second half...

Did you ask that when Joe scheduled Army, Navy, Airforce, Pitt, Rutgers, WVU, Temple, BC, Syracuse, Maryland, random Mac school and Notre Dame? Should JF use those old schedules? Joe had a losing career record vs OSU and Michigan. Did you count joes wins vs non top 10 teams? Might want to get a new bumper sticker.

Lets be honest, The success with honor BS is now out the window. Win regardless of honor. It is not enough to win but now you dont want to count top 20 wins. It is funny how you have moved the bar.

 

[Lion_Backer]

Over 40 years. Joe also was playing Army, Navy, Airforce, Maryland, BC, Rutgers, Pitt, Temple, Syracuse, Random MAC school, and Notre Dame. NO OSU or Michigan. Go figure. Joe had a losing career record vs OSU and MIchigan.

Pennsylvania also had double the amount of talent back then. There was also no scholarship limit when Joe started. The big schools could stockpile talent which increased their talent and took talent from other schools. During sanctions the experts considered going from 85 scholarships to 65 was a death sentence. Do you think having 100+ on scholarship was possibly an advantage? Initially there was no limit. Around 79 they had a limit of 105.

Maybe your expectations should be directed at all the other teams less men's basketball. I would be ok with eliminating 90% of those sports. Any sports that does not compete at a high level or at least break even I would ditch. I would keep football, basketball, wrestling, hockey, lacrosse and then 5 womens sports. I guess volleyball, soccer, and whatever. I would have to check the numbers on womens.

Does PSU have to be in the B10 in every sport? Notre Dame is in the acc for football, B10 for ice hockey. I think Arizona state is in the B10 in ice hockey. It makes no sense to be in the B10 in sports with zero fans and no revenue. Baseball, Soccer, girls field hockey, girls lacrosse, and so on travel across country to play in front of 120 family members and media in empty stadiums. Ditch the big conferences for non revenue sports and play local teams like Temple, pitt, rutgers, Syracuse, Maryland, SJU, Lasalle, Villanova, Penn. Playing local teams would actually increase attendance since both sets of fans could attend.

I believe you are a bit guilty of some revisionists history. Navy actually had a Heisman Trophy winner and Pitt was a national power for a 10 year period in the 70's and '80's. And Joe was fairly proficient in winning bowl games against supposedly superior opponents.

And the losing record that Joe had against OSU and UM comes with a giant asterisk. Upon joining the Big 10, we were presented with some officiating irregularities against these 2 opponents which not only negatively affected the outcome of those games, but the perception of our program.

With respect to the non-revenue sports programs, I do not know how you put that 'toothpaste' back into the tube.

I find it ironic that one of the purposes for Title IX was to provide student athletes the opportunity to learn life lessons that are core values in being successful both personally and professionally. But the schools and the networks have prostituted these young men to maximize revenues. Thereby not allowing them to learn from playing sports like the others who they bear the financial responsibility for (along with their coaches).

 

[joeaubie21]

I believe you are a bit guilty of some revisionists history. Navy actually had a Heisman Trophy winner and Pitt was a national power for a 10 year period in the 70's and '80's. And Joe was fairly proficient in winning bowl games against supposedly superior opponents.

And the losing record that Joe had against OSU and UM comes with a giant asterisk. Upon joining the Big 10, we were presented with some officiating irregularities against these 2 opponents which not only negatively affected the outcome of those games, but the perception of our program.

With respect to the non-revenue sports programs, I do not know how you put that 'toothpaste' back into the tube.

I find it ironic that one of the purposes for Title IX was to provide student athletes the opportunity to learn life lessons that are core values in being successful both personally and professionally. But the schools and the networks have prostituted these young men to maximize revenues. Thereby not allowing them to learn from playing sports like the others who they bear the financial responsibility for (along with their coaches).

It's hard to beat the cheat.

 

[Wesauking Lion]

Did you ask that when Joe scheduled Army, Navy, Airforce, Pitt, Rutgers, WVU, Temple, BC, Syracuse, Maryland, random Mac school and Notre Dame? Should JF use those old schedules? Joe had a losing career record vs OSU and Michigan. Did you count joes wins vs non top 10 teams? Might want to get a new bumper sticker.

Lets be honest, The success with honor BS is now out the window. Win regardless of honor. It is not enough to win but now you dont want to count top 20 wins. It is funny how you have moved the bar.

I made no mention of Joe, Joe's record, Joe's win breakdown or Success with Honor. He was not part of my response.... You seem to be fixated on him. He has not coached or been alive in over a decade. I did not move any bar up or down... ... My response was...

Who did we beat? Honestly... what was our great win... Iowa? We win by the other team getting tired in the second half...

Not sure what this has to do with Joe. Seems you went down a rabbit hole and found Joe.

 

[joeaubie21]

I made no mention of Joe, Joe's record, Joe's win breakdown or Success with Honor. He was not part of my response.... You seem to be fixated on him. He has not coached or been alive in over a decade. I did not move any bar up or down... ... My response was...

Who did we beat? Honestly... what was our great win... Iowa? We win by the other team getting tired in the second half...

Not sure what this has to do with Joe. Seems you went down a rabbit hole and found Joe.

"Soomgawa"

 

[LandoComando]

I believe you are a bit guilty of some revisionists history. Navy actually had a Heisman Trophy winner and Pitt was a national power for a 10 year period in the 70's and '80's. And Joe was fairly proficient in winning bowl games against supposedly superior opponents.

And the losing record that Joe had against OSU and UM comes with a giant asterisk. Upon joining the Big 10, we were presented with some officiating irregularities against these 2 opponents which not only negatively affected the outcome of those games, but the perception of our program.

With respect to the non-revenue sports programs, I do not know how you put that 'toothpaste' back into the tube.

I find it ironic that one of the purposes for Title IX was to provide student athletes the opportunity to learn life lessons that are core values in being successful both personally and professionally. But the schools and the networks have prostituted these young men to maximize revenues. Thereby not allowing them to learn from playing sports like the others who they bear the financial responsibility for (along with their coaches).

Navy was horrible in the 70s-80s. Their last Heiman winner was in 63--before Paterno was even a HC.
Pitt was good from 76-83 but how good--we can point to their schedule as well as what created it
There's no asterisk let alone a giant one--get out of here with that nonsense
That wasn't the intent of Title IX in reality

 

[voltz99]

I believe you are a bit guilty of some revisionists history. Navy actually had a Heisman Trophy winner and Pitt was a national power for a 10 year period in the 70's and '80's. And Joe was fairly proficient in winning bowl games against supposedly superior opponents.

And the losing record that Joe had against OSU and UM comes with a giant asterisk. Upon joining the Big 10, we were presented with some officiating irregularities against these 2 opponents which not only negatively affected the outcome of those games, but the perception of our program.

With respect to the non-revenue sports programs, I do not know how you put that 'toothpaste' back into the tube.

I find it ironic that one of the purposes for Title IX was to provide student athletes the opportunity to learn life lessons that are core values in being successful both personally and professionally. But the schools and the networks have prostituted these young men to maximize revenues. Thereby not allowing them to learn from playing sports like the others who they bear the financial responsibility for (along with their coaches).

According to wiki Navy finished in the top 20, ZERO times in the 70s. 0.0. Michigan and OSU were in the top 10 almost every year. Not the same.

PSU still found a way to lose a 7-6 game to Navy.

Pitt finished in the top 10 twice. PSU was 1-1. We dont count non top 10 wins here, right?

1971 NCAA University Division football rankings - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Only gives one year at a time. You have to go through with the front or back arrow.

 

[voltz99]

Navy was horrible in the 70s-80s. Their last Heiman winner was in 63--before Paterno was even a HC.
Pitt was good from 76-83 but how good--we can point to their schedule as well as what created it
There's no asterisk let alone a giant one--get out of here with that nonsense
That wasn't the intent of Title IX in reality

Asterisk for what? What created it? Can you Explain?

 

[Lion_Backer]

According to wiki Navy finished in the top 20, ZERO times in the 70s. 0.0. Michigan and OSU were in the top 10 almost every year. Not the same my friend.

PSU still found a way to lose a 7-6 game to Navy.

The point that I was trying to make was that teams that appear to be easy wins now may not have always been that way historically. Before PSU joined the B1G, OSU and UM were the Big 2 year and year out, going out to the Rose Bowl and getting hammered by whoever the representative was from the PAC 8/10.

I will repeat myself: FIVE undefeated and untied teams and 2 MNC. Granted, it was a different era then. But those teams and wins built up patience and good will within the fanbase. There was a decent length of time during Joe's tenure where, if a player was at PSU all 4 years, they got a chance to compete for, and win a MNC

The whole system has now been convoluted. How many more years of losing to OSU and UM would you deem acceptable before you think criticism is justified? (i understand that we will not play both yr in and yr out moving forward).

 

[LandoComando]

Asterisk for what? What created it? Can you Explain?

He wants and asterisk to make Joe's record better because the Big Ten sabotaged Paterno

 

[Mufasa94]

According to wiki…Pitt finished in the top 10 twice.

You should get better sources.

Pitt finished in the top 10 three times from ‘76-‘79, and then three more times from ‘80-‘82. That was the timeframe in the post that you responded to.

You want to see some less than stellar schedules that never get mentioned, go look at perfect record ‘69 Texas and their “big” victory opponent Arkansas, or the undefeated and tied each other ‘73 tOSU-UM teams.

I’ll put up PSU’s eastern based schedule against the MNC teams in ‘69, ‘73, and ‘77.

Yes, a well past his prime Paterno had a losing record vs. tOSU and UM. It happens. A past his prime Woody didn’t have his finest moment against Clemson, and an in his prime Bo never managed to win all his games.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Who did we beat? Honestly... what was our great win... Iowa? We win by the other team getting tired in the second half...

Well duh! That is how most good teams win. Geniuses make points for the people they are debating? 🚫!

 

[LandoComando]

You want to see some less than stellar schedules that never get mentioned, go look at perfect record ‘69 Texas and their “big” victory opponent Arkansas, or the undefeated and tied each other ‘73 tOSU-UM teams.

I’ll put up PSU’s eastern based schedule against the MNC teams in ‘69, ‘73, and ‘77.

In 69, prior to the bowl game Penn State's best win was WVU, right? Arkansas > WVU in 1969

 

[Lion_Backer]

You should get better sources.

Pitt finished in the top 10 three times from ‘76-‘79, and then three more times from ‘80-‘82. That was the timeframe in the post that you responded to.

You want to see some less than stellar schedules that never get mentioned, go look at perfect record ‘69 Texas and their “big” victory opponent Arkansas, or the undefeated and tied each other ‘73 tOSU-UM teams.

I’ll put up PSU’s eastern based schedule against the MNC teams in ‘69, ‘73, and ‘77.

Yes, a well past his prime Paterno had a losing record vs. tOSU and UM. It happens. A past his prime Woody didn’t have his finest moment against Clemson, and an in his prime Bo never managed to win all his games.

It's so difficult to evaluate teams from the '60's and '70's. Very few games were televised. So it was very important for your team to perform well when playing before a national television audience.

Watching the Penn State Football Story Sunday mornings was the best way to follow the team. Watching the games on a black and white TV with an antenna that could be adversely affected by inclement weather made viewing an adventure.

My perception of teams was formulated based on other people's opinions as viewing opportunities were limited for all teams.

 

[BBHorn86]

You should get better sources.

Pitt finished in the top 10 three times from ‘76-‘79, and then three more times from ‘80-‘82. That was the timeframe in the post that you responded to.

You want to see some less than stellar schedules that never get mentioned, go look at perfect record ‘69 Texas and their “big” victory opponent Arkansas, or the undefeated and tied each other ‘73 tOSU-UM teams.

I’ll put up PSU’s eastern based schedule against the MNC teams in ‘69, ‘73, and ‘77.

Yes, a well past his prime Paterno had a losing record vs. tOSU and UM. It happens. A past his prime Woody didn’t have his finest moment against Clemson, and an in his prime Bo never managed to win all his games.

Especially the Rose Bowl!!!!

 

[ryoder1]

If you were ok with a 9-3 career coach then why complain when a coach goes 10-2?

I was okay winning or challenging for NCs with a coach in his prime. Joe, post 1995 was old and should have retired.

 

[IANit]

Michigan's change this year was mostly because on the first 2 series their right tackle showed he could barely slow our edge rush and McCarthy was running for his life on every passing play. Since we had a full season of showing our offense wasn't very dangerous, they figured doing nothing but running the ball was low risk low reward since they already had the lead in the game. It wasn't really about adjusting to try to exploit our defensive vulnerabilities, but more about masking their offensive deficiency in that matchup. Our defense didn't do a terrible job after the adjustment except for a couple of plays, which isn't surprising given our offense didn't give them any help. If we had any sort of a competent offense, that plan fails and we win that game. But we let them get away with it because we couldn't move the ball effectively.

Our defense did a great job in the second half except for giving up Corum's TD after Franklin was an idiot and went for it on his 30. I doubt that happens if we punt there.

I hope that Kotelnicki is an upgrade. I would think we might see something like how Diaz's defense improved from Miami to PSU with the upgrade in talent. But unless our offense is 1994 Part 2, Franklin still needs to improve on game day for us to win when talent is close or slightly better

 

[Mufasa94]

In 69, prior to the bowl game Penn State's best win was WVU, right?

Maybe. PSU opponent Colorado also finished ranked after going 8-3. Arkansas was the only regular season opponent of Texas who finished ranked. OU was 6-4. Btw, the earlier dissed Navy team also played Texas in ‘69.

Arkansas > WVU in 1969

The world will never know.

One thing the world does know is Arkansas did not beat a single team that had a winning record that year (including losing their bowl game to a team that was 7-3 entering it). Read that again and let it sink in after all the negative words written about PSU this season.

It is inarguable that 10-1 WVU had more success than that Arkansas team since WVU beat South Carolina in their bowl.

If there was only an internet way back then to shed light on reality as opposed to reputation.

 

[Marylovesthelions]

below. I often think teams struggle with changing their philosophy when they have talent. I think there has to be a bit of swagger and confidence. I am a bit concerned that OC Kotelnicki can change his stripes with talent exceeding most teams he'll be facing. I think you have to give kudos to Michigan who changed to an offensive model that is more "here we are, try to stop us" mentality. Against us, they ran on every single play in the second half. Why? Because they knew this model would work, was less risky, and would lead to victory. They also stuck to their running game against tOSU. What is common is that these are the only two games where UM faced talent that was similar to theirs.

I feel like CJF trying trick plays exposes PSU's lack of confidence. If you have a good offense, you don't need to "trick" the defense.

Can we make that change?

View embedded media

Syracuse under Swartzenwald in the 1950s-60s did this. Everyone knew they were going to run. He coached such GREAT OLs and had great TBs. Wisconsin until recently and Iowa under Ferenz dare you to stop them. They, like UM develope OL kids that are superior blockers and developed swagger. They know that they will win the scrimmage.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Syracuse under Swartzenwald in the 1950s-60s did this. Everyone knew they were going to run. He coached such GREAT OLs and had great TBs. Wisconsin until recently and Iowa under Ferenz dare you to stop them. They, like UM develope OL kids that are superior blockers and developed swagger. They know that they will win the scrimmage.

Until they don't. Lol which in the case of Michigan, where they won't be able to hold in the CFP on every play by every offensive lineman, all 7 seniors or 5th-6th guys they have on the OL this year.... Coming up shortly.

How many national championships or CFP games has Wisconsin played? It's not the '50s and '60s anymore.