So many positives— Kotelnicki O, Drew’s execution— one constant was O line- best performance in years- 0 sacks, clean pocket and zone runs

[LongJakk]

I was pleased with AK's play calling and variability of schemes. Hallelujah! I definitely think we reigned in the offense in the 2nd half, so I'm not 100% certain that he made many adjustments after seeing WVU's halftime adjustments. MY never seemd to have an answer to opponents halftime adjustments.

I was also pleased with TA's schemes. We kept Greene in check all game long. I did see Carter drop into coverage a few times. Our schemes under JF have always been to stop the run and go after the QB in passing downs. That works great except when the other QB is really good, which is the top 10 teams and those QBs throw more on early downs. EVERYONE struggles on D if the QB is elite. Those are the games where the O has to pick up the slack, but again, top 10 teams are also going to be very good on D.

I give all 3 new coordinators an A.

 

[lazydave841]

Should we be semi-concerned about Kaytron struggling to run?

I'm still concerned about our wr group, obviously.

Sure. He is supposed to be our better "tough runner". He had a bad day rushing. He looked great on his receiving TD, which leads me to believe that WVU was triggering down on any run action with Allen in the game.

You should be concerned about the WR room. Let them show it.

 

[TheWizardofCamelot]

Did I miss news on Quinton Anthony? Is he hurt?

 

[lazydave841]

Did I miss news on Quinton Anthony? Is he hurt?

Martin?

And context?

 

[Lion_Backer]

Did I miss news on Quinton Anthony? Is he hurt?

WHO PLAYED AND HOW MUCH

Above link provides player participation log for Penn State vs WVU

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

You need to get medicated, Bushwood. You may have gotten horse-collared one too many times and suffered whiplash to the noggin or something. Yeah, the salient point to take away from the exercise of stripping away the big runs is to expose the overall efficiency. It's a quick and dirty way to do so. It's OK. You could add them back in and go through the entire analysis I laid before your feet (and you freaked out about that, too ... since you freak out about everything), or you could do what those people did and get the same gist.

In places where you need to be literal (like with the horse-collar rule), you decided to make up your own rule and disregard entirely what is actually written and enforced. In places where you don't need to be literal, but can understand what these folks are getting at, you decide to be literal-boy.

It's like you want to fail ... and then flip out about it.

Good Lord you are a moron.... you don't need to be literal when the posters IN FACT and REALITY removed the two of the 8 "successful" carries by Singleton (i.e., 25% of the "successful" carries using your preferred metric), while eliminating none of the unsuccessful carries thereby statistically illegitimately increasing the unsuccessful rate significantly???? How precisely does factually eliminating the two most successful carries on a completely statistically illegitimate basis (including your preferred analysis) provide an improved quick-test??? You're so full of shit toolbox it's amusing to watch you spin your wheels and make an ass of yourself, as per usual. LMFAO

 

[PurposePitch]

Good Lord you are a moron.... you don't need to be literal when the posters IN FACT and REALITY removed the two of the 8 "successful" carries by Singleton (i.e., 25% of the "successful" carries using your preferred metric), while eliminating none of the unsuccessful carries thereby statistically illegitimately increasing the unsuccessful rate significantly???? How precisely does factually eliminating the two most successful carries on a completely statistically illegitimate basis (including your preferred analysis) provide an improved quick-test??? You're so full of shit toolbox it's amusing to watch you spin your wheels and make an ass of yourself, as per usual. LMFAO

My prior post still stands as entirely valid, despite your pouting nonsensical rant, which didn't dispute anything I actually stated. Take your meds.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

My prior post still stands as entirely valid, despite your pouting nonsensical rant, which didn't dispute anything I actually stated. Take your meds.

Don't under-rate yourself, you're quite a slouch. Absolutely nothing in your prior post, or any of your absurd posts, "stands" moron. Nobody is as infatuated with your posts as you are dippy.

 

[PurposePitch]

Don't under-rate yourself, you're quite a slouch. Absolutely nothing in your prior post, or any of your absurd posts, "stands" moron. Nobody is as infatuated with your posts as you are dippy.

Are you more or less convinced of your righteousness here than you were in the horse-collar debate, in which you failed miserably?

 

[Kasparaitis]

You need to get medicated, Bushwood. You may have gotten horse-collared one too many times and suffered whiplash to the noggin or something. Yeah, the salient point to take away from the exercise of stripping away the big runs is to expose the overall efficiency. It's a quick and dirty way to do so. It's OK. You could add them back in and go through the entire analysis I laid before your feet (and you freaked out about that, too ... since you freak out about everything), or you could do what those people did and get the same gist.

In places where you need to be literal (like with the horse-collar rule), you decided to make up your own rule and disregard entirely what is actually written and enforced. In places where you don't need to be literal, but can understand what these folks are getting at, you decide to be literal-boy.

It's like you want to fail ... and then flip out about it.

Did you just say Brushwood? Now just be a man, say you’re sorry and we can all move on.