SIAP: Why the Nittany Lions Won't be Going Under Center, Ever
- Thread starter mn78psu83
- Start date
Not even for the "Generations of Greatness" game?
Perhaps Moorhead can at least roll up his cuffs.
I get it ---- still don't really like it.
On another note: I click on the link and StateCollege.com has a link to an article about 6-10 inches of snow hitting Central Pennsylvania. That definitely made me curious, being late September and all (plus it was 90 degrees there just the other day). Turns out the link is to an article from February 2014. What the heck?
On another note: I click on the link and StateCollege.com has a link to an article about 6-10 inches of snow hitting Central Pennsylvania. That definitely made me curious, being late September and all (plus it was 90 degrees there just the other day). Turns out the link is to an article from February 2014. What the heck?
Didn't know NCAA law requires a fullback on the roster if you go under center. Who'd thunk it?
That logic is flawed. It completely ignores the probability of getting 1-3 positive yards if you hand off the ball 2 yards deep vs 4-5 yes deep. I would venture to say that you're more likely to get some big gainers with RPO, but you're less likely to move the ball 1 yd when you need it.
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
"The thing that you have to remember is when you talk about numbers and angles, every offensive player that you back bring into the backfield to become a blocker," Moorhead said on Thursday during a teleconference. "When a defense is playing cover zero they're adding another defender that takes the run away, so when you're under center there is nobody to read so essentially you're handing off the ball to an unblocked defender at the point of attack."
Probably true, however, if not do you really think they would forewarn OSU, UM, etc.? Coaching 101, always speak with forked tongue!
okay, one has to ask, why do you need a FB to go under center? you could still stay with 11 personal, put the QB under the center, now the D has a least 3 quick receivers plus the TE to defend, all the while they probably have to walk their LBers up to defend QB sneak. So again why do you need a FB? Besides bring the slot in some sort of zoom motion, which would force the D to at least start moving, have the RB right behind the QB at whatever depth,check to the run right at the 3 technique, and there you go! Cut off the backside, reach the front side, and get enough movement for the RB to read and make a cut.
But it isnt going to happen, so why worry about it, it is not their philosophy. Many 'spread' teams struggle with third and short, see the Eagles under Chip Kelly, same problem.
Agree. That explanation makes no sense. You can go under center with one or no backs.
I think the lack of a FB just usually ends up in the short yardage discussion and gets conflated with the under center issue. Hence, Ben Jones threw it in at the end of the article. It's a red herring here.
Yeah. Chip and the Eagles. See the Arizona and San Francisco game tapes.
so imo, the real issue is not the under center issue, but a change in how the OL blocks. I dont know how ML coaches them, but I know many OL coaches dont teach firing off the ball. They dont teach throwing the head in there and stabbing guys like the old days. Rather the OL first steps are more lateral than forward. The scoot left or right, and try to get in front of the guy, keep their heads out of the block, lift low to high with their hands. It is more catching then driving, and in short yardage, I think they more often lose. So this is not unique to PSU, but again any one that blocks like this, no matter where the QB is.
Not a fb guru by any means, but there's a few problems I see with Moorehead's analysis.
1. He seems to tout that the RPO gives PSU the benefit of making the unblocked defender make a choice before committing to the play. All good - except it seems that on 3rd and short yardage plays, when the defender is pretty much always committing to the run, Moorehead is still giving it to Barkley (or doing a keeper). So, basically, they are losing the benefit of the RPO, while just force feeding Barkley 6 yards in the backfield on a play the defense anticipated. Seems destined for failure.
2. On 3rd down and 1, teams are about 70% successful when running and about 58% successful when passing (I looked that up). And a majority of those successful plays are either draws or qb sneaks. Not to say that a team should always run a draw or qb sneak on 3rd and 1, but installing an RPO on that play just eliminates the two most historically successful plays from your playbook for that situation. You are just making it way easier on the opponent.
3. Until we have an RT that can be trusted to sustain a block, I just see too much risk on short yardage plays - when the defense is anticipating the run - handing off to your rb 6 yards into the backfield. You're essentially adding a DE to the equation, that would have largely been rendered moot by simply going under center.
1. He seems to tout that the RPO gives PSU the benefit of making the unblocked defender make a choice before committing to the play. All good - except it seems that on 3rd and short yardage plays, when the defender is pretty much always committing to the run, Moorehead is still giving it to Barkley (or doing a keeper). So, basically, they are losing the benefit of the RPO, while just force feeding Barkley 6 yards in the backfield on a play the defense anticipated. Seems destined for failure.
2. On 3rd down and 1, teams are about 70% successful when running and about 58% successful when passing (I looked that up). And a majority of those successful plays are either draws or qb sneaks. Not to say that a team should always run a draw or qb sneak on 3rd and 1, but installing an RPO on that play just eliminates the two most historically successful plays from your playbook for that situation. You are just making it way easier on the opponent.
3. Until we have an RT that can be trusted to sustain a block, I just see too much risk on short yardage plays - when the defense is anticipating the run - handing off to your rb 6 yards into the backfield. You're essentially adding a DE to the equation, that would have largely been rendered moot by simply going under center.
Last edited:
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Can you imagine that dude blocking in short yardage? He has some wheels too at 6' 1" 280 +.Yes we do. Wears a FB number and everything.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Exactly. How hard is it to tell him to hit the guy in front of him? It's not rocket surgery.
Agree. There are many players they could put at the fullback position, Robinson, a TE or another OLman.
Sounds like Jo Mo is being a little stubborn.
Here's a question: why does everyone seem to think that running in short yardage will be more successful if we just move McSorley under center? Regardless of where Trace takes the snap, Barkley is still going to line up at equal depth in the backfield and will need to run an equal distance to the line of scrimmage.
Iowa ran a heck of a lot of plays from under center that weren't successful because we were able to get penetration. Preventing penetration is the key to a successful running game, regardless of where the quarterback takes the snap. We were one of the best offenses in the country last year in finishing drives, and it just seems a little hasty that we end up settling for field goals a few times in one game on the road against Iowa and people want to install an entirely new package.
Iowa ran a heck of a lot of plays from under center that weren't successful because we were able to get penetration. Preventing penetration is the key to a successful running game, regardless of where the quarterback takes the snap. We were one of the best offenses in the country last year in finishing drives, and it just seems a little hasty that we end up settling for field goals a few times in one game on the road against Iowa and people want to install an entirely new package.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Gives defenses something else to think about. There should almost never a scenario where we can’t get one yard if needed. They stuffed us twice on drives from the one.
I don't pretend to be an expert on this subject, but when I watch PSU games and see Barkley getting handed the balL five yards behind the LOS, and at a standstill, I always wonder how much better it might be if, at least occasionally, he received the ball while already in motion (either forward or laterally). I guess the thinking is that Barkley's amazing ability to go 0-25 MPH almost instantly makes this less of a problem, and it preserves the run pass option.
Also, my jonesy for seeing Barkley get the ball "in space" is largely satiated by the fact that Moorhead has Trace hitting him with short throws (screens, flares, dump offs, etc.) quite frequently. Barkley's ability to catch the ball and get YAC is just one more thing that sets him apart from EVERYONE.
i would love to see the Lions emulate USC and run an occasional "Student Body Left" (or "Student Body Right"). Seems like Barkley would be dynamite getting the pitch and taking it on a sweep. Offensive linemen tend to love that kind of play, too.
IMO, the only thing it will give defenses to think about is "oh, they're obviously running the ball here."
But again, why do we seem to think that Trace's location would somehow positively affect whether we can convert in short yardage? Where Trace takes the snap isn't going to affect the core issue in short yardage of the offensive line getting the push needed to convert. On those two plays, the line failed to execute (although I think Barkley would have scored on the one third down where McSorley kept the ball). That's the issue, and I don't see a reason why Iowa's penetration wouldn't have been identical if Trace happened to have been under center.
Hat I would like to see which is kind of (or could be) best of both worlds is for them to use the pistol formation. Barkley would be behind the QB the QB would move up slightly for the snap approx. 3-4 yards depth as opposed to 5.
With Barkley right behind the QB he would be a threat to go either to the left or right with a hand off. You could still run inside outside zones, the mesh points for the RPO's would be different, which is the problem. Essentially it comes down to the coaches feeling comfortable with how much they can practice and be successful. Which is why I don't see it happening because if it did, they would have to most likely have been practicing it all along.
With Barkley right behind the QB he would be a threat to go either to the left or right with a hand off. You could still run inside outside zones, the mesh points for the RPO's would be different, which is the problem. Essentially it comes down to the coaches feeling comfortable with how much they can practice and be successful. Which is why I don't see it happening because if it did, they would have to most likely have been practicing it all along.
imo the problem with the pistol is that the QB is standing up in front of the RB. I think it effects the running backs vision. In the I formation, the fb is normally down in a three point stance, the reason is, so the TB can see.
I know this, the QB isnt going under C with JMO calling the plays.
In general and in theory I agree but it's not that hard for the RB, to lean and see in both directions, his only blocked vision is directly in front of him. So only if the Defense has a head up NT or a head up MLB would he not have them in his vision.
After watching him get down field on Barkley's long run against Purdue last year, my vote would be Bates!
If you look at teams in the "I" or just one back while under center, you will see that sometimes - maybe I should say "often" - the running back at the top of the "I" is lined up 7 yards off the ball. That puts PS's RBs 2-3 yards closer to the LOS then they would be in the "I".
OL
All I know is O'B did not have a reliable kicker and went 4th and short often. Perhaps we had the greatest guard center comb in the history of college football, yet with the defense knowing exactly what was coming, PSU converted most of those sneaks. With all due respect to sluggo's explanation(s), I fear we are witnessing a little "cut my nose off to spite my face" here. My other thought, didn't SB shoot himself like a rocket over the mass of linemen a couple of times last year?
To that point: I would bet that there have been studies done that chart the amount of time it takes from the snap to the running back actually hitting the line of scrimmage, both from the shotgun and when the QB is under center. I'd be curious to know what those times are like; in my eyes, it ultimately wouldn't really matter where the players are lined up if the time it takes from the snap to the time the RB reaches the line is similar, because that's ultimately the amount of time that the OL needs to hold their blocks regardless of the way the backfield is aligned.
Raffycorn,
I would agree that is timed and recorded someplace. I'll look around to see if it is available.
Thanks,
OL
I would agree that is timed and recorded someplace. I'll look around to see if it is available.
Thanks,
OL
This offense has been so successful, why would anyone even question it? Let the masters do their work.
I remember SO many games in our history when the the QB was under center and the RB got stuffed at the line. It's no magic formation.
I remember SO many games in our history when the the QB was under center and the RB got stuffed at the line. It's no magic formation.
