Last evening and early this morning I got the opportunity to look at the DVR taping of this past Saturday's game with Buffalo. What I'll discuss here in part 1 of my "Inside Look at Penn State Football" are both the good and bad impressions I observed from Penn State's players and coaching staff on offense from this past Saturday's game against the Bulls. In part 2 of my "Inside Look at Penn State Football" later this week, I'll break down both positive and negative observations from Penn State's defensive performance against Buffalo.
Sorry that the approach I have been forced to take in my reporting because of my present health situation I outlined in the thread here in the Lions Den last night pertaining to my analysis of Saturday's game against Buffalo. But that is enough of that. It's time to get started talking about Penn State's performance on offense against Buffalo this past Saturday.
1] It is my firm belief that James Franklin and his staff took a major step in the right direction on Saturday against Buffalo, when they made the decision to put Christian Hackenberg under center close to 50-percent of the time and run basically from a pro-set formation with a single back behind Hackenberg in the backfield. Even when Hackenberg was placed in the shot-gun formation with a single-back set it proved to be a benefit to both the passing and the running game once Saquon Barley became Penn State's dominant rusher in the fourth quarter.
In that 4th quarter alone Barkley rushed the football eight times for 101 yards with runs of 33, 24, and 17 yards, coupled with a 9-yard TD at the 9:02 mark of the fourth quarter that gave Penn State a 27-7 lead over Buffalo. Barkley averaged 12.6 yards per carry [ypc] every time he touched the football. There are those that will say that was the result of Penn State taking advantage of a tired Buffalo defense and inserting a fresh back like Barkley into the lineup, but personally I believe it was the direct result of Penn State's coaching staff making the decision to expand their running game and run as many times outside the tackle box as between the tackles.
If you look at the tape closely Barkley 33-yard scamper on the first play of the fourth quarter was off tackle behind behind a seal block from Penn State's LT Paris Palmer. Barkley's 24-run later in the fourth quarter was off tackle behind Penn State's RT Brendan Mahon. A play Barkley bounced to the outside once he got to the second level behind the line of scrimmage.
In the Nittany Lions' opening game against Temple, Penn State with Hackenberg in the shot-gun formation five yards behind the line of scrimmage ran slow developing running plays from either a variation of a "read option " running attack or slow developing plays from a pro-set single-back set. The only time Penn State ran the ball outside the tackle box took place when freshman wide receiver, Brandon Polk, successfully ran the "fly" sweep twice for 50 yards.
That type of rushing attack was doomed for failure once Temple made the decision after Penn State's two opening offensive series of the game to put eight defenders in the box, walk up their SS within seven yards of the line of scrimmage, and play press man-to-man pass coverage with their CBs on Penn State's wide receivers.
That defensive strategy by Temple completely shutdown Penn State's inside running game between the tackles because it allowed Temple's coaches to understand that Penn State's rushing attack would be solely between the tackles. That is because in a "read option" running attack if the quarterback isn't a running option then 50-percent of the field is eliminated. In a "read option" attack the quarterback is an important key element in the running game.
The only way a team can have a an effective running game with a "read option" style of running attack solely when running just between the tackles is if that team has one of the most dominant offensive lines in the country. Personally, I really don't even think that is a viable option. The most successful teams with a "read option" or "zone option" style of running game, Ohio State and Oregon, can't operate effectively without a quality running quarterback. Oregon demonstrated that clearly in its game against Michigan State when it was held to under 100 yards rushing. And with the offensive line Penn State presently has to work with it's an impossibility.
Going into the fourth quarter when Penn State inserted Barkley as its # 1 running back the Nittany Lions had just 186 yards of total offense on 49 plays and had rushed for just 78 yards on 28 plays averaging just 2.8 ypc against a totally physically outmatched Buffalo defense,108 of which were with the passing game. When the game ended Penn State had 328 yards of total offense and had rushed for 200 yards on 39 attempts and averaged 5.2 yards per carry. You make the decision if that was the result of Barkley taking advantage of a tired Buffalo defense or Penn State changing it's approach with its plan of attack with its running game. To an extent it was probably a combination of both.
2] Before I get into discussing some of the changes that took place on offense that had a direct bearing on the Nittany Lions' passing attack against Buffalo, I'd like to report on the performance of a couple of offensive linemen that played beyond my expectations in the game against the Bulls, particularly in the fourth quarter with the running game when Barkley was able to run for 101 yards on eight carries. Those two individuals are Jr. LT Paris Palmer and Sr. C Angelo Mangiro.
When Andrew Nelson got hurt on the last play of the second quarter just before halftime, I can imagine there were a lot of Lions Den members who expected Penn State's offensive line performance to fall apart in the second half. Actually just the opposite took place. Palmer, especially in the fourth quarter, did an excellent job with his run blocking.
On Barkley's 33-yard run off left tackle that kicked off the start of the fourth quarter, Palmer had the "key" seal-kick out block on Buffalo's defensive end that sprung Barkley into the second level of Buffalo's defense and down the sideline in front of Penn State's sideline bench. On the very next play Buffalo made a defensive switch with its OLB to Palmer's side of the field, placing him a yard outside Palmer's left shoulder removing him from Buffalo's 8-man front inside the box against Penn State's rushing attack.
On that very play Penn State made the decision to run Barkley on a quick hitter off guard to Palmer's side of the field. Palmer again made the key block to help spring Barley for a 17-yard gain. Palmer chip- blocked Buffalo's defensive end and continued to the second level and seal-blocked Buffalo's OLB and prevented him from closing down from the outside to disrupt the play. The same type of combination block scheme was utilized by Palmer on Barkley's 9-yard TD later in the fourth quarter that gave Penn State a 27-7 lead over the Bulls. In pass blocking situations Penn State used a "zone" pass blocking scheme to help Palmer out, but that is something I'll discuss in detail when I concentrate on the changes that took place against Buffalo relative to the passing game.
Mangiro also did a couple of excellent "reach" blocks on Barley's 17-yard run and his 9-yard TD scampers. He fired off the ball with some explosion getting to the second level past the line of scrimmage and preventing Buffalo's MLB from getting involved with the play.
After watching the type of success Penn State had running the football with Barkley on quick hitters between the tackles and the way he ran successfully off tackle and outside the tackle box, I can guarantee you this will be Penn State's plan of attack with the running game against Rutgers' defensive game plan on Saturday. The Scarlet Knights will do exactly what they did last September when they limited Penn State's rushing attack to 64 yards. Position 8-men in the box, walk up their SS at times to put nine players within seven yards of the line of scrimmage and run inside blitzes in both both running and passing situations. The coverage most of the time will be cover-two with the safeties to help out the Scarlet Knights' depleted secondary ravaged by four defensive backs being thrown off the team. I can't imagine you'll see Penn State in a "read option" type of running game attack or have many slow developing runs against Rutgers' defensive game-plan.
Sorry that the approach I have been forced to take in my reporting because of my present health situation I outlined in the thread here in the Lions Den last night pertaining to my analysis of Saturday's game against Buffalo. But that is enough of that. It's time to get started talking about Penn State's performance on offense against Buffalo this past Saturday.
1] It is my firm belief that James Franklin and his staff took a major step in the right direction on Saturday against Buffalo, when they made the decision to put Christian Hackenberg under center close to 50-percent of the time and run basically from a pro-set formation with a single back behind Hackenberg in the backfield. Even when Hackenberg was placed in the shot-gun formation with a single-back set it proved to be a benefit to both the passing and the running game once Saquon Barley became Penn State's dominant rusher in the fourth quarter.
In that 4th quarter alone Barkley rushed the football eight times for 101 yards with runs of 33, 24, and 17 yards, coupled with a 9-yard TD at the 9:02 mark of the fourth quarter that gave Penn State a 27-7 lead over Buffalo. Barkley averaged 12.6 yards per carry [ypc] every time he touched the football. There are those that will say that was the result of Penn State taking advantage of a tired Buffalo defense and inserting a fresh back like Barkley into the lineup, but personally I believe it was the direct result of Penn State's coaching staff making the decision to expand their running game and run as many times outside the tackle box as between the tackles.
If you look at the tape closely Barkley 33-yard scamper on the first play of the fourth quarter was off tackle behind behind a seal block from Penn State's LT Paris Palmer. Barkley's 24-run later in the fourth quarter was off tackle behind Penn State's RT Brendan Mahon. A play Barkley bounced to the outside once he got to the second level behind the line of scrimmage.
In the Nittany Lions' opening game against Temple, Penn State with Hackenberg in the shot-gun formation five yards behind the line of scrimmage ran slow developing running plays from either a variation of a "read option " running attack or slow developing plays from a pro-set single-back set. The only time Penn State ran the ball outside the tackle box took place when freshman wide receiver, Brandon Polk, successfully ran the "fly" sweep twice for 50 yards.
That type of rushing attack was doomed for failure once Temple made the decision after Penn State's two opening offensive series of the game to put eight defenders in the box, walk up their SS within seven yards of the line of scrimmage, and play press man-to-man pass coverage with their CBs on Penn State's wide receivers.
That defensive strategy by Temple completely shutdown Penn State's inside running game between the tackles because it allowed Temple's coaches to understand that Penn State's rushing attack would be solely between the tackles. That is because in a "read option" running attack if the quarterback isn't a running option then 50-percent of the field is eliminated. In a "read option" attack the quarterback is an important key element in the running game.
The only way a team can have a an effective running game with a "read option" style of running attack solely when running just between the tackles is if that team has one of the most dominant offensive lines in the country. Personally, I really don't even think that is a viable option. The most successful teams with a "read option" or "zone option" style of running game, Ohio State and Oregon, can't operate effectively without a quality running quarterback. Oregon demonstrated that clearly in its game against Michigan State when it was held to under 100 yards rushing. And with the offensive line Penn State presently has to work with it's an impossibility.
Going into the fourth quarter when Penn State inserted Barkley as its # 1 running back the Nittany Lions had just 186 yards of total offense on 49 plays and had rushed for just 78 yards on 28 plays averaging just 2.8 ypc against a totally physically outmatched Buffalo defense,108 of which were with the passing game. When the game ended Penn State had 328 yards of total offense and had rushed for 200 yards on 39 attempts and averaged 5.2 yards per carry. You make the decision if that was the result of Barkley taking advantage of a tired Buffalo defense or Penn State changing it's approach with its plan of attack with its running game. To an extent it was probably a combination of both.
2] Before I get into discussing some of the changes that took place on offense that had a direct bearing on the Nittany Lions' passing attack against Buffalo, I'd like to report on the performance of a couple of offensive linemen that played beyond my expectations in the game against the Bulls, particularly in the fourth quarter with the running game when Barkley was able to run for 101 yards on eight carries. Those two individuals are Jr. LT Paris Palmer and Sr. C Angelo Mangiro.
When Andrew Nelson got hurt on the last play of the second quarter just before halftime, I can imagine there were a lot of Lions Den members who expected Penn State's offensive line performance to fall apart in the second half. Actually just the opposite took place. Palmer, especially in the fourth quarter, did an excellent job with his run blocking.
On Barkley's 33-yard run off left tackle that kicked off the start of the fourth quarter, Palmer had the "key" seal-kick out block on Buffalo's defensive end that sprung Barkley into the second level of Buffalo's defense and down the sideline in front of Penn State's sideline bench. On the very next play Buffalo made a defensive switch with its OLB to Palmer's side of the field, placing him a yard outside Palmer's left shoulder removing him from Buffalo's 8-man front inside the box against Penn State's rushing attack.
On that very play Penn State made the decision to run Barkley on a quick hitter off guard to Palmer's side of the field. Palmer again made the key block to help spring Barley for a 17-yard gain. Palmer chip- blocked Buffalo's defensive end and continued to the second level and seal-blocked Buffalo's OLB and prevented him from closing down from the outside to disrupt the play. The same type of combination block scheme was utilized by Palmer on Barkley's 9-yard TD later in the fourth quarter that gave Penn State a 27-7 lead over the Bulls. In pass blocking situations Penn State used a "zone" pass blocking scheme to help Palmer out, but that is something I'll discuss in detail when I concentrate on the changes that took place against Buffalo relative to the passing game.
Mangiro also did a couple of excellent "reach" blocks on Barley's 17-yard run and his 9-yard TD scampers. He fired off the ball with some explosion getting to the second level past the line of scrimmage and preventing Buffalo's MLB from getting involved with the play.
After watching the type of success Penn State had running the football with Barkley on quick hitters between the tackles and the way he ran successfully off tackle and outside the tackle box, I can guarantee you this will be Penn State's plan of attack with the running game against Rutgers' defensive game plan on Saturday. The Scarlet Knights will do exactly what they did last September when they limited Penn State's rushing attack to 64 yards. Position 8-men in the box, walk up their SS at times to put nine players within seven yards of the line of scrimmage and run inside blitzes in both both running and passing situations. The coverage most of the time will be cover-two with the safeties to help out the Scarlet Knights' depleted secondary ravaged by four defensive backs being thrown off the team. I can't imagine you'll see Penn State in a "read option" type of running game attack or have many slow developing runs against Rutgers' defensive game-plan.
Last edited by a moderator:
