So how much does the Offense fall off at least in the first few games?

[Nitt1300]

Yeah, that's the point I am making. Please list, as many as you like, the major wins you would credit to Moorhead. My point is that by running that offense we hindered ourselves as defenses found it okay to only key one player and we couldn't consistently gain the yards we needed when we really needed too, even with a once in a generation talent like 26.

dude- PSU finished #1 and #2 in the conference in total offense in the two years Moorhead was OC. It isn't all about one player, it never has been. If you don't realize just how good Moorhead was for PSU, I don't know what to tell you, 'cept you don't seem to know shit.

 

[ApexLion]

So what? The PC is public info.

There's more guys banged up.

 

[ColinPSU]

dude- PSU finished #1 and #2 in the conference in total offense in the two years Moorhead was OC. It isn't all about one player, it never has been. If you don't realize just how good Moorhead was for PSU, I don't know what to tell you, 'cept you don't seem to know shit.

Correct, and all those points and yards ended as losses against good teams. I recommend you rewatch the entire 4th quarter of our losses to ranked teams and count the number of stalled drives, and consider why they stalled out.

 

[Howie'81]

Correct, and all those points and yards ended as losses against good teams. I recommend you rewatch the entire 4th quarter of our losses to ranked teams and count the number of stalled drives, and consider why they stalled out.

Wait, didn't we score 42 on the greatest defense in college football history, devised by the greatest DC in college football history, Don Brown?

 

[Howie'81]

Correct, and all those points and yards ended as losses against good teams. I recommend you rewatch the entire 4th quarter of our losses to ranked teams and count the number of stalled drives, and consider why they stalled out.

Didn't we eviscerate a really good Washington defense for over 530 yards?

 

[anon_1eeb2b426hv3y]

While most people talk about the "skill positions" what really makes any offense go is the line. If ours is as improved as it appears to be, the offense could be better than last year, even with the relative lack of experience at some of the "skill" positions./QUOTE]

THIS. And a veteran QB and serious talent at those skill positions.

and thanks for saying in 2 sentences what took me several paragraphs and several posts.

dude- PSU finished #1 and #2 in the conference in total offense in the two years Moorhead was OC. It isn't all about one player, it never has been. If you don't realize just how good Moorhead was for PSU, I don't know what to tell you, 'cept you don't seem to know shit.

Agreed. That O was awesome and was perfect for PSU's strengths and weaknesses. We shot the moon with him as OC. But there's a necessary trade-off when the playbook can't be unlimited and the OP has a decent point about when the weaknesses were apparent. But if the weaknesses only become determinate in few games v. top competition, that's pretty good given where the program was.

 

[ApexLion]

Granted Apex but I don't see 40+ points per game. Not that its a bad thing at all; more balance and a better, more consistent running game cost us a shot at the playoff last year. Being able to run when we needed to versus running to open up the pass.

So where do you see the over/under on points per game given we were at 40+ last year?

We will score. Not worried although we want to see a run game emerge.

We have injury issues on the other side and its early. Not good. Simmons, Windsor, and Toney are banged up. Hopefully the latter two go on Saturday. Simmons is out as we heard. Losing Bucholz was not a positive obviously (if you recall the OSU game played out differently after he left). Should we win the noncon games? Yes, but defensively this is a work in progress. Both boards seem way too optimistic long-term based on what we know to date.

 

[Madsol]

We will score. Not worried although we want to see a run game emerge.

We have injury issues on the other side and its early. Not good. Simmons, Windsor, and Toney are banged up. Hopefully the latter two go on Saturday. Simmons is out as we heard. Losing Bucholz was not a positive obviously (if you recall the OSU game played out differently after he left). Should we win the noncon games? Yes, but defensively this is a work in progress. Both boards seem way too optimistic long-term based on what we know to date.

Hadn't heard about Windsor or Toney. Was that from the press confernce yesterday?

 

[Nitt1300]

Correct, and all those points and yards ended as losses against good teams. I recommend you rewatch the entire 4th quarter of our losses to ranked teams and count the number of stalled drives, and consider why they stalled out.

line play- or lack of it

I recommend that you start to watch what is going on in the trenches- because that is where games are won and lost

 

[ColinPSU]

line play- or lack of it

I recommend that you start to watch what is going on in the trenches- because that is where games are won and lost

Yes, certainly. Has nothing to do with running 99% of snaps out of 11 and 4 formations. All on the line.

 

[SUPERTODD]

Everyone would want Barkley back. It’s not loss of Barkley or any great contributor that could make PSU’s O more effective than last year’s. It’s that the OL will be able to protect a veteran stud QB allowing PSU’s O to not be so reliant on Barkley’s brilliance.
Rant warning: It’s been a year + of reading way too many posts saying we were disadvantaged by teams keying Barkley. That wasn’t a disadvantage! It was an advantage we couldn't benefit from, except situationally. Enabling a mobile QB to decide between getting it to 26 or running himself or firing it off to Godwin, Hamilton or Mike G depending on what the D gave, all while working around a patwork OL, was the brilliance of JoMo’s offense. And it was particularly brilliant when we were playing catch-up and swinging for the fences with little to lose and a gutsy QB that wasn’t yet proven MVP caliber. BUT sometimes it was limiting in a tight slugfest or with the lead against a stingy and talented D when the pressure was on, or once protecting star assets became a newly created choice.

Our O will be better because we’ll have an effective OL to operate from, not operate around. Yes, we lost some brilliant pieces. But the missing piece to greatness hasn’t been the need to lose great things. It’s been needing to get what we haven't had. Fingers crossed our OL is as expected and remains intact.

You make excellent points. One thing I would like to add is that Barkley was responsible for a lot of lost yards. As brilliant as he was, he very frequently did not take what was offered. He was always looking for the home run. The Iowa game was replayed last night and it really surprised me how many times Barkley didn’t get the one or two yards we needed because he would not just surge forward for a tough yard. It was his one weakness, but that weakness did not pare well with a shaky OL because it required them to mantain blocks longer than they should have had to on a lot of plays. Against elite DLs that is really hard to do.

 

[Nitt1300]

Yes, certainly. Has nothing to do with running 99% of snaps out of 11 and 4 formations. All on the line.

The overall results confirmed the effectiveness of the scheme. If I wanted to point out any deficiencies I might suggest that the play calling sometimes seemed to be influenced by a desire to make sure that Barkley got maximum touches in support of his Heisman hopes. Our line was overmatched too often and I thought they might have called McSorely's number a bit more and Barkley's a bit less.

But that's splitting hairs and complaining about a handful of plays ignores the bigger picture and simply reeks of entitlement.