ADVERTISEMENT

Scott Loefler: PSU secondary "completely different" from what he saw when he coached at Michigan

tboyer

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2002
9,978
7,256
1
Of course some of this is ritual buttering-up from an underdog opponent coach but there's truth to it. PSU's secondary is really good, on a totally different level from Paterno/Bradley days. The thought that PSU has 4 safeties capable of playing at an all-B10 level -- that's pretty mind-boggling.

 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister
I didn't mention it but of all the things we saw on Saturday vs WVU, the most impressive was the S play. Those guys are big, strong and fast. They close and they tackle. S play is underrated. The key to any defense is the way the S play. These guys can support the run stopping game and cover.
 
Of course some of this is ritual buttering-up from an underdog opponent coach but there's truth to it. PSU's secondary is really good, on a totally different level from Paterno/Bradley days. The thought that PSU has 4 safeties capable of playing at an all-B10 level -- that's pretty mind-boggling.

Who is the 4th S?
 
Of course some of this is ritual buttering-up from an underdog opponent coach but there's truth to it. PSU's secondary is really good, on a totally different level from Paterno/Bradley days. The thought that PSU has 4 safeties capable of playing at an all-B10 level -- that's pretty mind-boggling.

I agree. Paterno had great players and great teams but DBs were often not a strength.
 
  • Like
Reactions: royboy
Brian Miller, David Macklin, Alan Zematias and Leonard Humphries say Hi. Paterno had a couple good Db's
Of course there were some good ones but those teams were usually better stopping the run than stopping the pass.
 
Brian Miller, David Macklin, Alan Zematias and Leonard Humphries say Hi. Paterno had a couple good Db's

Of course there were some good ones but those teams were usually better stopping the run than stopping the pass.
It was a different era. Passing games weren't nearly as sophisticated and teams rarely had 3 top tier receivers, so if you could cover one and and then cover the field with zone, that worked most of the time. Bradley's scheme could fall apart when there were 3 top flight receivers on the field (Rose Bowl, USC, 2009)
 
  • Like
Reactions: mnuccio2
if he's playing in game one of his frosh campaign, on the road against a team that doesn't suck, I'd say they think he's pretty good.
Also a need for depth at Safety, and the need to develop next years Safety’s as all three of this years starters cold leave, although Wheatley likely returns. We will likely see the true freshman Toure play some as the year goes on as well….
 
Of course some of this is ritual buttering-up from an underdog opponent coach but there's truth to it. PSU's secondary is really good, on a totally different level from Paterno/Bradley days. The thought that PSU has 4 safeties capable of playing at an all-B10 level -- that's pretty mind-boggling.

The team and staff seems to be on a roll attracting and developing safeties, which makes the defense better and the team more competitive against teams with varying strengths.
I think a capable two-way safety is the most underrated position in both the college and pro game.
it might get overlooked in college because of other gaps.
Look at how few safteties get drafted high in the NFL, and those that do that don't pan out (Cine from Georgia).
I thought Shawn Mayer, when healthy, was the PSU satety that stood out as making a difference both ways.
Boyd was a hitter, but not sure he was as good in coverage.
I think Zemaitis and even Amos were more saftey-like in their play.
 
It was a different era. Passing games weren't nearly as sophisticated and teams rarely had 3 top tier receivers, so if you could cover one and and then cover the field with zone, that worked most of the time. Bradley's scheme could fall apart when there were 3 top flight receivers on the field (Rose Bowl, USC, 2009)
Kim Herring and Michael Zordich along with Mark Robinson all 1st team A-A
 
It was a different era. Passing games weren't nearly as sophisticated and teams rarely had 3 top tier receivers, so if you could cover one and and then cover the field with zone, that worked most of the time. Bradley's scheme could fall apart when there were 3 top flight receivers on the field (Rose Bowl, USC, 2009)
Agree but Flutie didn't need 3 top tier receivers when BC passed for 605 yds in a game PSU won 52-17.

The old bend but not break defense.
 
Joke spot after 1st down play - the screen pass never sniffed the LOS let alone get anywhere near 36.
 
I agree. Paterno had great players and great teams but DBs were often not a strength.

To me it's simply the differences between man and zone schemes. Man is more exciting but gives up bigger plays and more penalties, zone gives up shorter passing plays but fewer yards after the catch.
 
Of course some of this is ritual buttering-up from an underdog opponent coach but there's truth to it. PSU's secondary is really good, on a totally different level from Paterno/Bradley days. The thought that PSU has 4 safeties capable of playing at an all-B10 level -- that's pretty mind-boggling.

Relying on anything coaching opponents say is like taking political advice from the opposing party. (Without naming names.)
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT