Final thoughts on IU, esp vav the offensive line

[bjf1991]

1 - The IU defense, as noted last week, was the 180 degree opposite of the Iowa team PSU shredded the prior week.
Against Iowa, when PSU was running their zone-read run game, the line could come to the LOS.....see the defensive front....and the front side could know "this is my assignment", and the backside could know "this is my assignment", and it was simply a matter of going out and executing your assignment.
Against IU, with constantly "moving parts" on defense, the line has to adjust on the fly - - - - and consistently getting the required leverages requires a heavy reliance on good footwork and coordination on the fly.

That was a problem....and a lot of the credit should go to the IU defense and the schemes employed by their staff.
That was - IMO - far and away the prevailing issue wrt the run game difficulties.

2 - Personnel wise, some brief comments:

A - Bates is one of those kids who is just a good football player. He looked - amazingly - just fine at LT. Not fantastic, but far from being "the problem"

B - Wright really struggled at RT. As I think we all knew, his quickness and footwork is really not tailored for the OT spot, and - especially in pass pro - he had a rugged 1st half. Showed some improvement in the 2n half.....but still a long way to go.

C - Finishing out the OT spot, Palmer played only a few snaps - so not much to comment on - but he did get whooped a couple times in the opening drive in pass pro.

D - Over the last few weeks,52 and 66 have been doing an OUTSTANDING job - especially in the zone read scheme - of getting to the 2nd level.
The OG/OC group really struggled with that against IU......some of that due to the IU moving parts scheme - but I am sure the shuffling of personnel also contributed. Again, they improved a bit in the 2nd half, but the inability to consistently get leverage on those lane-fillers realy kept Barkley bottled up.

E - at OG, Gonzalez didn't play all that much (before watching the video, I had an impression he had played a bit more). I didn't note the exact snap count - and I know that is tracked somewhere else (Callahan?) but I expect the number of snaps was probably somewhere under 25 or so.
When he played, he was (mostly) solid - but certainly not to the level of the OG play the last month or so.

F - Dowrey was OK. Usually OK assignment wise, but not the biggest, strongest guy wrt maintaining leverage and creating a seam.

G - McGovern was very hit and miss. As we saw in his showcase at OT in the BW game - quickness of foot is not his strong point.....and all of the slants, pre-snap shifts, blitzes etc that forced him to employ proper footwork at the point of attack left him exposed at times - and led to a couple plays blowing up due to his assignment.

H - As has been the case throughout the season - Gaia and Gesicki far to often complete a play by blocking air. There has been some improvement throughout the year in both cases - - - - but it still happens too often.
Gaia is just WAY to slow and clumsy with his footwork to have any consistency at all in getting to his second level assignments (when called upon), and Gesicki - while there has been improvement from September to November - spends far too many plays "watching"

Overall, the Pass Pro inside the tackles was solid across the board against base fronts.
Both Wright and Palmer (the few snaps he was in there) really struggled against speed......and, of course, the numerous blitz packages caught PSU outmanned on occasion
There were also two drop backs where McSorley could be evaluated as "moving into pressure" (though he - as has been the norm - had 3X as many occasions when he bought time and "made a play")


There were other "non-offensive line" issues with the run game:

Namely:

Mc"Sore"ly made a handful of very bad "gives" (when he woulda' coulda' shoulda' "kept") in the zone-read game.
I am assuming this was primarily due to being banged up - - - - both leading to less confidence in being able to employ the quickness necessary to beat the containment, as well as he (and the staff) not wanting him to take any more hits than necessary (kid took a beating out there)

Barkley - kid is a beast - and has made "outstanding" look like run-of-the-mill.....but there were a couple situations (just a couple) where he didn't maximize his opportunities (but, of course, we've all been spoiled....and overall, he had another outstanding game)

The run game play-calling (almost certainly to keep things simple due to the changes up front) was back to being more-or-less as vanilla as it was the first couple weeks (which was a problem then)
Very little of the more "esoteric" stuff - - - - the pull/trap looks in the zone-read were few and far between (though one of those woulda' coulda' gone for BIG yardage - maybe a TD - if Gesicki had not been driven so far into his own backfield on the edge block that Barkley would have had to have taken a "two-transfer-bus-ride" to get around him and gain the edge), the "option the LBer" variations were gone from the scheme, and we only saw a couple of the "quick to the outside" plays (jet-sweep, outside zone stuff) that had been creeping more and more onto the play sheet lately.

Just worth a mention - - - Godwin, for a WR, is one hell of an "effort" guy in the run game blocking.
He is often - even when given very difficult assignments to carry out - very effective (and certainly very willing and physical) in his 2nd level blocking assignments. About as good as I can remember in recent years for a PSU WR.
Also, the holding call on Hamilton (IIRC) on the nice jet sweep run by Barkley.....was bullshit.

Also - just a "non-offensive line" item of note:
Reid (who has been a beast all year) probably had his worst game as a PSU CB (real nice job on PR though).
I expect, given the way that kid seems to "want it", that he will be hell on wheels in preparation this week - and have a big game at Rutgers.

______________________________


So - - - - overall - - - - IMO, just a confluence of events up front that led to the disappearance of the run game.

If it is possible to get Bates back to OG, just to re-establish some consistency inside - even though he was fine at OT - it might be the biggest potential "improvement" for the finishing kick to the season.
Other than that......there were enough "negative impact" items - that can be remedied this week - along with the fact that they won't be facing a defensive front with so many "moving parts", that I expect the run game issues may not look nearly so ugly next week.

 

[Madsol]

1 - The IU defense, as noted last week, was the 180 degree opposite of the Iowa team PSU shredded the prior week.
Against Iowa, when PSU was running their zone-read run game, the line could come to the LOS.....see the defensive front....and the front side could know "this is my assignment", and the backside could know "this is my assignment", and it was simply a matter of going out and executing your assignment.
Against IU, with constantly "moving parts" on defense, the line has to adjust on the fly - - - - and consistently getting the required leverages requires a heavy reliance on good footwork and coordination on the fly.

That was a problem....and a lot of the credit should go to the IU defense and the schemes employed by their staff.
That was - IMO - far and away the prevailing issue wrt the run game difficulties.

2 - Personnel wise, some brief comments:

A - Bates is one of those kids who is just a good football player. He looked - amazingly - just fine at LT. Not fantastic, but far from being "the problem"

B - Wright really struggled at RT. As I think we all knew, his quickness and footwork is really not tailored for the OT spot, and - especially in pass pro - he had a rugged 1st half. Showed some improvement in the 2n half.....but still a long way to go.

C - Finishing out the OT spot, Palmer played only a few snaps - so not much to comment on - but he did get whooped a couple times in the opening drive in pass pro.

D - Over the last few weeks,52 and 66 have been doing an OUTSTANDING job - especially in the zone read scheme - of getting to the 2nd level.
The OG/OC group really struggled with that against IU......some of that due to the IU moving parts scheme - but I am sure the shuffling of personnel also contributed. Again, they improved a bit in the 2nd half, but the inability to consistently get leverage on those lane-fillers realy kept Barkley bottled up.

E - at OG, Gonzalez didn't play all that much (before watching the video, I had an impression he had played a bit more). I didn't note the exact snap count - and I know that is tracked somewhere else (Callahan?) but I expect the number of snaps was probably somewhere under 25 or so.
When he played, he was (mostly) solid - but certainly not to the level of the OG play the last month or so.

F - Dowrey was OK. Usually OK assignment wise, but not the biggest, strongest guy wrt maintaining leverage and creating a seam.

G - McGovern was very hit and miss. As we saw in his showcase at OT in the BW game - quickness of foot is not his strong point.....and all of the slants, pre-snap shifts, blitzes etc that forced him to employ proper footwork at the point of attack left him exposed at times - and led to a couple plays blowing up due to his assignment.

H - As has been the case throughout the season - Gaia and Gesicki far to often complete a play by blocking air. There has been some improvement throughout the year in both cases - - - - but it still happens too often.
Gaia is just WAY to slow and clumsy with his footwork to have any consistency at all in getting to his second level assignments (when called upon), and Gesicki - while there has been improvement from September to November - spends far too many plays "watching"

Overall, the Pass Pro inside the tackles was solid across the board against base fronts.
Both Wright and Palmer (the few snaps he was in there) really struggled against speed......and, of course, the numerous blitz packages caught PSU outmanned on occasion
There were also two drop backs where McSorley could be evaluated as "moving into pressure" (though he - as has been the norm - had 3X as many occasions when he bought time and "made a play")


There were other "non-offensive line" issues with the run game:

Namely:

Mc"Sore"ly made a handful of very bad "gives" (when he woulda' coulda' shoulda' "kept") in the zone-read game.
I am assuming this was primarily due to being banged up - - - - both leading to less confidence in being able to employ the quickness necessary to beat the containment, as well as he (and the staff) not wanting him to take any more hits than necessary (kid took a beating out there)

Barkley - kid is a beast - and has made "outstanding" look like run-of-the-mill.....but there were a couple situations (just a couple) where he didn't maximize his opportunities (but, of course, we've all been spoiled....and overall, he had another outstanding game)

The run game play-calling (almost certainly to keep things simple due to the changes up front) was back to being more-or-less as vanilla as it was the first couple weeks (which was a problem then)
Very little of the more "esoteric" stuff - - - - the pull/trap looks in the zone-read were few and far between (though one of those woulda' coulda' gone for BIG yardage - maybe a TD - if Gesicki had not been driven so far into his own backfield on the edge block that Barkley would have had to have taken a "two-transfer-bus-ride" to get around him and gain the edge), the "option the LBer" variations were gone from the scheme, and we only saw a couple of the "quick to the outside" plays (jet-sweep, outside zone stuff) that had been creeping more and more onto the play sheet lately.

Just worth a mention - - - Godwin, for a WR, is one hell of an "effort" guy in the run game blocking.
He is often - even when given very difficult assignments to carry out - very effective (and certainly very willing and physical) in his 2nd level blocking assignments. About as good as I can remember in recent years for a PSU WR.
Also, the holding call on Hamilton (IIRC) on the nice jet sweep run by Barkley.....was bullshit.

Also - just a "non-offensive line" item of note:
Reid (who has been a beast all year) probably had his worst game as a PSU CB (real nice job on PR though).
I expect, given the way that kid seems to "want it", that he will be hell on wheels in preparation this week - and have a big game at Rutgers.

______________________________


So - - - - overall - - - - IMO, just a confluence of events up front that led to the disappearance of the run game.

If it is possible to get Bates back to OG, just to re-establish some consistency inside - even though he was fine at OT - it might be the biggest potential "improvement" for the finishing kick to the season.
Other than that......there were enough "negative impact" items - that can be remedied this week - along with the fact that they won't be facing a defensive front with so many "moving parts", that I expect the run game issues may not look nearly so ugly next week.

Thanks for this. I'm not an Xs and Os guy but really enjoy the depth with which you get into these things.

 

[psuro]

I just hope IU can give Michigan as much trouble as they gave PSU. That would provide some justification to the effort that we had to give.

 

[Obliviax]

1 - The IU defense, as noted last week, was the 180 degree opposite of the Iowa team PSU shredded the prior week.
Against Iowa, when PSU was running their zone-read run game, the line could come to the LOS.....see the defensive front....and the front side could know "this is my assignment", and the backside could know "this is my assignment", and it was simply a matter of going out and executing your assignment.
Against IU, with constantly "moving parts" on defense, the line has to adjust on the fly - - - - and consistently getting the required leverages requires a heavy reliance on good footwork and coordination on the fly.

That was a problem....and a lot of the credit should go to the IU defense and the schemes employed by their staff.
That was - IMO - far and away the prevailing issue wrt the run game difficulties.

2 - Personnel wise, some brief comments:

A - Bates is one of those kids who is just a good football player. He looked - amazingly - just fine at LT. Not fantastic, but far from being "the problem"

B - Wright really struggled at RT. As I think we all knew, his quickness and footwork is really not tailored for the OT spot, and - especially in pass pro - he had a rugged 1st half. Showed some improvement in the 2n half.....but still a long way to go.

C - Finishing out the OT spot, Palmer played only a few snaps - so not much to comment on - but he did get whooped a couple times in the opening drive in pass pro.

D - Over the last few weeks,52 and 66 have been doing an OUTSTANDING job - especially in the zone read scheme - of getting to the 2nd level.
The OG/OC group really struggled with that against IU......some of that due to the IU moving parts scheme - but I am sure the shuffling of personnel also contributed. Again, they improved a bit in the 2nd half, but the inability to consistently get leverage on those lane-fillers realy kept Barkley bottled up.

E - at OG, Gonzalez didn't play all that much (before watching the video, I had an impression he had played a bit more). I didn't note the exact snap count - and I know that is tracked somewhere else (Callahan?) but I expect the number of snaps was probably somewhere under 25 or so.
When he played, he was (mostly) solid - but certainly not to the level of the OG play the last month or so.

F - Dowrey was OK. Usually OK assignment wise, but not the biggest, strongest guy wrt maintaining leverage and creating a seam.

G - McGovern was very hit and miss. As we saw in his showcase at OT in the BW game - quickness of foot is not his strong point.....and all of the slants, pre-snap shifts, blitzes etc that forced him to employ proper footwork at the point of attack left him exposed at times - and led to a couple plays blowing up due to his assignment.

H - As has been the case throughout the season - Gaia and Gesicki far to often complete a play by blocking air. There has been some improvement throughout the year in both cases - - - - but it still happens too often.
Gaia is just WAY to slow and clumsy with his footwork to have any consistency at all in getting to his second level assignments (when called upon), and Gesicki - while there has been improvement from September to November - spends far too many plays "watching"

Overall, the Pass Pro inside the tackles was solid across the board against base fronts.
Both Wright and Palmer (the few snaps he was in there) really struggled against speed......and, of course, the numerous blitz packages caught PSU outmanned on occasion
There were also two drop backs where McSorley could be evaluated as "moving into pressure" (though he - as has been the norm - had 3X as many occasions when he bought time and "made a play")


There were other "non-offensive line" issues with the run game:

Namely:

Mc"Sore"ly made a handful of very bad "gives" (when he woulda' coulda' shoulda' "kept") in the zone-read game.
I am assuming this was primarily due to being banged up - - - - both leading to less confidence in being able to employ the quickness necessary to beat the containment, as well as he (and the staff) not wanting him to take any more hits than necessary (kid took a beating out there)

Barkley - kid is a beast - and has made "outstanding" look like run-of-the-mill.....but there were a couple situations (just a couple) where he didn't maximize his opportunities (but, of course, we've all been spoiled....and overall, he had another outstanding game)

The run game play-calling (almost certainly to keep things simple due to the changes up front) was back to being more-or-less as vanilla as it was the first couple weeks (which was a problem then)
Very little of the more "esoteric" stuff - - - - the pull/trap looks in the zone-read were few and far between (though one of those woulda' coulda' gone for BIG yardage - maybe a TD - if Gesicki had not been driven so far into his own backfield on the edge block that Barkley would have had to have taken a "two-transfer-bus-ride" to get around him and gain the edge), the "option the LBer" variations were gone from the scheme, and we only saw a couple of the "quick to the outside" plays (jet-sweep, outside zone stuff) that had been creeping more and more onto the play sheet lately.

Just worth a mention - - - Godwin, for a WR, is one hell of an "effort" guy in the run game blocking.
He is often - even when given very difficult assignments to carry out - very effective (and certainly very willing and physical) in his 2nd level blocking assignments. About as good as I can remember in recent years for a PSU WR.
Also, the holding call on Hamilton (IIRC) on the nice jet sweep run by Barkley.....was bullshit.

Also - just a "non-offensive line" item of note:
Reid (who has been a beast all year) probably had his worst game as a PSU CB (real nice job on PR though).
I expect, given the way that kid seems to "want it", that he will be hell on wheels in preparation this week - and have a big game at Rutgers.

______________________________


So - - - - overall - - - - IMO, just a confluence of events up front that led to the disappearance of the run game.

If it is possible to get Bates back to OG, just to re-establish some consistency inside - even though he was fine at OT - it might be the biggest potential "improvement" for the finishing kick to the season.
Other than that......there were enough "negative impact" items - that can be remedied this week - along with the fact that they won't be facing a defensive front with so many "moving parts", that I expect the run game issues may not look nearly so ugly next week.

Good observation on Reid. Defensively, we've struggled against pro-style QB's (UM, Purdue, Indy). I thought our coverage was soft. IMHO, we are at risk against MSU if we can't get our o-line straitened out.

 

[bwifan]

1 - The IU defense, as noted last week, was the 180 degree opposite of the Iowa team PSU shredded the prior week.
Against Iowa, when PSU was running their zone-read run game, the line could come to the LOS.....see the defensive front....and the front side could know "this is my assignment", and the backside could know "this is my assignment", and it was simply a matter of going out and executing your assignment.
Against IU, with constantly "moving parts" on defense, the line has to adjust on the fly - - - - and consistently getting the required leverages requires a heavy reliance on good footwork and coordination on the fly.

That was a problem....and a lot of the credit should go to the IU defense and the schemes employed by their staff.
That was - IMO - far and away the prevailing issue wrt the run game difficulties.

2 - Personnel wise, some brief comments:

A - Bates is one of those kids who is just a good football player. He looked - amazingly - just fine at LT. Not fantastic, but far from being "the problem"

B - Wright really struggled at RT. As I think we all knew, his quickness and footwork is really not tailored for the OT spot, and - especially in pass pro - he had a rugged 1st half. Showed some improvement in the 2n half.....but still a long way to go.

C - Finishing out the OT spot, Palmer played only a few snaps - so not much to comment on - but he did get whooped a couple times in the opening drive in pass pro.

D - Over the last few weeks,52 and 66 have been doing an OUTSTANDING job - especially in the zone read scheme - of getting to the 2nd level.
The OG/OC group really struggled with that against IU......some of that due to the IU moving parts scheme - but I am sure the shuffling of personnel also contributed. Again, they improved a bit in the 2nd half, but the inability to consistently get leverage on those lane-fillers realy kept Barkley bottled up.

E - at OG, Gonzalez didn't play all that much (before watching the video, I had an impression he had played a bit more). I didn't note the exact snap count - and I know that is tracked somewhere else (Callahan?) but I expect the number of snaps was probably somewhere under 25 or so.
When he played, he was (mostly) solid - but certainly not to the level of the OG play the last month or so.

F - Dowrey was OK. Usually OK assignment wise, but not the biggest, strongest guy wrt maintaining leverage and creating a seam.

G - McGovern was very hit and miss. As we saw in his showcase at OT in the BW game - quickness of foot is not his strong point.....and all of the slants, pre-snap shifts, blitzes etc that forced him to employ proper footwork at the point of attack left him exposed at times - and led to a couple plays blowing up due to his assignment.

H - As has been the case throughout the season - Gaia and Gesicki far to often complete a play by blocking air. There has been some improvement throughout the year in both cases - - - - but it still happens too often.
Gaia is just WAY to slow and clumsy with his footwork to have any consistency at all in getting to his second level assignments (when called upon), and Gesicki - while there has been improvement from September to November - spends far too many plays "watching"

Overall, the Pass Pro inside the tackles was solid across the board against base fronts.
Both Wright and Palmer (the few snaps he was in there) really struggled against speed......and, of course, the numerous blitz packages caught PSU outmanned on occasion
There were also two drop backs where McSorley could be evaluated as "moving into pressure" (though he - as has been the norm - had 3X as many occasions when he bought time and "made a play")


There were other "non-offensive line" issues with the run game:

Namely:

Mc"Sore"ly made a handful of very bad "gives" (when he woulda' coulda' shoulda' "kept") in the zone-read game.
I am assuming this was primarily due to being banged up - - - - both leading to less confidence in being able to employ the quickness necessary to beat the containment, as well as he (and the staff) not wanting him to take any more hits than necessary (kid took a beating out there)

Barkley - kid is a beast - and has made "outstanding" look like run-of-the-mill.....but there were a couple situations (just a couple) where he didn't maximize his opportunities (but, of course, we've all been spoiled....and overall, he had another outstanding game)

The run game play-calling (almost certainly to keep things simple due to the changes up front) was back to being more-or-less as vanilla as it was the first couple weeks (which was a problem then)
Very little of the more "esoteric" stuff - - - - the pull/trap looks in the zone-read were few and far between (though one of those woulda' coulda' gone for BIG yardage - maybe a TD - if Gesicki had not been driven so far into his own backfield on the edge block that Barkley would have had to have taken a "two-transfer-bus-ride" to get around him and gain the edge), the "option the LBer" variations were gone from the scheme, and we only saw a couple of the "quick to the outside" plays (jet-sweep, outside zone stuff) that had been creeping more and more onto the play sheet lately.

Just worth a mention - - - Godwin, for a WR, is one hell of an "effort" guy in the run game blocking.
He is often - even when given very difficult assignments to carry out - very effective (and certainly very willing and physical) in his 2nd level blocking assignments. About as good as I can remember in recent years for a PSU WR.
Also, the holding call on Hamilton (IIRC) on the nice jet sweep run by Barkley.....was bullshit.

Also - just a "non-offensive line" item of note:
Reid (who has been a beast all year) probably had his worst game as a PSU CB (real nice job on PR though).
I expect, given the way that kid seems to "want it", that he will be hell on wheels in preparation this week - and have a big game at Rutgers.

______________________________


So - - - - overall - - - - IMO, just a confluence of events up front that led to the disappearance of the run game.

If it is possible to get Bates back to OG, just to re-establish some consistency inside - even though he was fine at OT - it might be the biggest potential "improvement" for the finishing kick to the season.
Other than that......there were enough "negative impact" items - that can be remedied this week - along with the fact that they won't be facing a defensive front with so many "moving parts", that I expect the run game issues may not look nearly so ugly next week.

Good write up... I also saw Bates numerous times after a play was over helping/talking to the guards on their assignments. Since several times the guards either whiffed or missed assignments. Kept his cool but looked like he was explaining to them what they missed. Amazing to think he is a redshirt freshmen was almost like having a coach on the field.

 

[ClarkstonMark]

I just hope IU can give Michigan as much trouble as they gave PSU. That would provide some justification to the effort that we had to give.

Would like to see that as well.
But I expect to see UM roll up 50+ and close to 600 yards in the Big House, while shutting down the IU O.

 

[royboy]

Perhaps an obvious point, but PSU has been terrific in the 2nd half

26-13 vs MN
14-0 vs MD
17-0 vs tOSU in 4th Q
45-7 vs Purdue
24-7 vs Indiana in 4th Q

conditioning, coaching, depth have been pluses

 

[BBrown]

1 - The IU defense, as noted last week, was the 180 degree opposite of the Iowa team PSU shredded the prior week.
Against Iowa, when PSU was running their zone-read run game, the line could come to the LOS.....see the defensive front....and the front side could know "this is my assignment", and the backside could know "this is my assignment", and it was simply a matter of going out and executing your assignment.
Against IU, with constantly "moving parts" on defense, the line has to adjust on the fly - - - - and consistently getting the required leverages requires a heavy reliance on good footwork and coordination on the fly.

That was a problem....and a lot of the credit should go to the IU defense and the schemes employed by their staff.
That was - IMO - far and away the prevailing issue wrt the run game difficulties.

2 - Personnel wise, some brief comments:

A - Bates is one of those kids who is just a good football player. He looked - amazingly - just fine at LT. Not fantastic, but far from being "the problem"

B - Wright really struggled at RT. As I think we all knew, his quickness and footwork is really not tailored for the OT spot, and - especially in pass pro - he had a rugged 1st half. Showed some improvement in the 2n half.....but still a long way to go.

C - Finishing out the OT spot, Palmer played only a few snaps - so not much to comment on - but he did get whooped a couple times in the opening drive in pass pro.

D - Over the last few weeks,52 and 66 have been doing an OUTSTANDING job - especially in the zone read scheme - of getting to the 2nd level.
The OG/OC group really struggled with that against IU......some of that due to the IU moving parts scheme - but I am sure the shuffling of personnel also contributed. Again, they improved a bit in the 2nd half, but the inability to consistently get leverage on those lane-fillers realy kept Barkley bottled up.

E - at OG, Gonzalez didn't play all that much (before watching the video, I had an impression he had played a bit more). I didn't note the exact snap count - and I know that is tracked somewhere else (Callahan?) but I expect the number of snaps was probably somewhere under 25 or so.
When he played, he was (mostly) solid - but certainly not to the level of the OG play the last month or so.

F - Dowrey was OK. Usually OK assignment wise, but not the biggest, strongest guy wrt maintaining leverage and creating a seam.

G - McGovern was very hit and miss. As we saw in his showcase at OT in the BW game - quickness of foot is not his strong point.....and all of the slants, pre-snap shifts, blitzes etc that forced him to employ proper footwork at the point of attack left him exposed at times - and led to a couple plays blowing up due to his assignment.

H - As has been the case throughout the season - Gaia and Gesicki far to often complete a play by blocking air. There has been some improvement throughout the year in both cases - - - - but it still happens too often.
Gaia is just WAY to slow and clumsy with his footwork to have any consistency at all in getting to his second level assignments (when called upon), and Gesicki - while there has been improvement from September to November - spends far too many plays "watching"

Overall, the Pass Pro inside the tackles was solid across the board against base fronts.
Both Wright and Palmer (the few snaps he was in there) really struggled against speed......and, of course, the numerous blitz packages caught PSU outmanned on occasion
There were also two drop backs where McSorley could be evaluated as "moving into pressure" (though he - as has been the norm - had 3X as many occasions when he bought time and "made a play")


There were other "non-offensive line" issues with the run game:

Namely:

Mc"Sore"ly made a handful of very bad "gives" (when he woulda' coulda' shoulda' "kept") in the zone-read game.
I am assuming this was primarily due to being banged up - - - - both leading to less confidence in being able to employ the quickness necessary to beat the containment, as well as he (and the staff) not wanting him to take any more hits than necessary (kid took a beating out there)

Barkley - kid is a beast - and has made "outstanding" look like run-of-the-mill.....but there were a couple situations (just a couple) where he didn't maximize his opportunities (but, of course, we've all been spoiled....and overall, he had another outstanding game)

The run game play-calling (almost certainly to keep things simple due to the changes up front) was back to being more-or-less as vanilla as it was the first couple weeks (which was a problem then)
Very little of the more "esoteric" stuff - - - - the pull/trap looks in the zone-read were few and far between (though one of those woulda' coulda' gone for BIG yardage - maybe a TD - if Gesicki had not been driven so far into his own backfield on the edge block that Barkley would have had to have taken a "two-transfer-bus-ride" to get around him and gain the edge), the "option the LBer" variations were gone from the scheme, and we only saw a couple of the "quick to the outside" plays (jet-sweep, outside zone stuff) that had been creeping more and more onto the play sheet lately.

Just worth a mention - - - Godwin, for a WR, is one hell of an "effort" guy in the run game blocking.
He is often - even when given very difficult assignments to carry out - very effective (and certainly very willing and physical) in his 2nd level blocking assignments. About as good as I can remember in recent years for a PSU WR.
Also, the holding call on Hamilton (IIRC) on the nice jet sweep run by Barkley.....was bullshit.

Also - just a "non-offensive line" item of note:
Reid (who has been a beast all year) probably had his worst game as a PSU CB (real nice job on PR though).
I expect, given the way that kid seems to "want it", that he will be hell on wheels in preparation this week - and have a big game at Rutgers.

______________________________


So - - - - overall - - - - IMO, just a confluence of events up front that led to the disappearance of the run game.

If it is possible to get Bates back to OG, just to re-establish some consistency inside - even though he was fine at OT - it might be the biggest potential "improvement" for the finishing kick to the season.
Other than that......there were enough "negative impact" items - that can be remedied this week - along with the fact that they won't be facing a defensive front with so many "moving parts", that I expect the run game issues may not look nearly so ugly next week.

Nice write up.
I haven't seen any RU games this year. What type of defense do they play and do you anticipate them giving a us a problem even with the patched up line. I thought they had a pretty decent DL (Hamilton maybe)?

I thought the holding call on Hamilton was iffy as well, especially after seeing sicklels pulled to the ground on the last IU series.
There were some other things that bugged me with the officiating. I thought the re-kick for IU because of the kids kicking a ball into the endzone was bullshit. Either we get the ball where we had it in really good field position or IU gets a penalty tacked on. Not another kick. We were the ones that ended up being "penalized" for them not being able to control their stadium.
Also there was a sequence in the 3rd quarter (I think) where the IU player made a nice stop on Barkley but in front of everyone and on TV made a throat slashing gesture not once but twice and nothing.

I thought Kevin Wilson and his DC called an exceptional game. IU is not that far off from being a very good team.
I think their QB has a lot of potential. I think they give Michy a real run this week.

 

[bjf1991]

Perhaps an obvious point, but PSU has been terrific in the 2nd half

26-13 vs MN
14-0 vs MD
17-0 vs tOSU in 4th Q
45-7 vs Purdue
24-7 vs Indiana in 4th Q

conditioning, coaching, depth have been pluses

The rotation of guys on the defensive front seven (nice to have more than 3 LBers again ......love what #47 has done - really surprised me) has really paid dividends.

PSU does not have the biggest, most physical group out there - but they are very quick and athletic for their positions.
Keeping them "fresh and quick" has been a huge asset.
And the schemes up front have played perfectly to their strengths.

Givens - though he doesn't play a ton of snaps - has been nearly unblockable in the 2nd half of games. And the DEs have been able to stay fresh and really use their athleticism on the edge to get after the QB in the second half

Kudos to Pry and Spence on their work with those groups.

 

[PSU&Trout]

1 - The IU defense, as noted last week, was the 180 degree opposite of the Iowa team PSU shredded the prior week.
Against Iowa, when PSU was running their zone-read run game, the line could come to the LOS.....see the defensive front....and the front side could know "this is my assignment", and the backside could know "this is my assignment", and it was simply a matter of going out and executing your assignment.
Against IU, with constantly "moving parts" on defense, the line has to adjust on the fly - - - - and consistently getting the required leverages requires a heavy reliance on good footwork and coordination on the fly.

That was a problem....and a lot of the credit should go to the IU defense and the schemes employed by their staff.
That was - IMO - far and away the prevailing issue wrt the run game difficulties.

2 - Personnel wise, some brief comments:

A - Bates is one of those kids who is just a good football player. He looked - amazingly - just fine at LT. Not fantastic, but far from being "the problem"

B - Wright really struggled at RT. As I think we all knew, his quickness and footwork is really not tailored for the OT spot, and - especially in pass pro - he had a rugged 1st half. Showed some improvement in the 2n half.....but still a long way to go.

C - Finishing out the OT spot, Palmer played only a few snaps - so not much to comment on - but he did get whooped a couple times in the opening drive in pass pro.

D - Over the last few weeks,52 and 66 have been doing an OUTSTANDING job - especially in the zone read scheme - of getting to the 2nd level.
The OG/OC group really struggled with that against IU......some of that due to the IU moving parts scheme - but I am sure the shuffling of personnel also contributed. Again, they improved a bit in the 2nd half, but the inability to consistently get leverage on those lane-fillers realy kept Barkley bottled up.

E - at OG, Gonzalez didn't play all that much (before watching the video, I had an impression he had played a bit more). I didn't note the exact snap count - and I know that is tracked somewhere else (Callahan?) but I expect the number of snaps was probably somewhere under 25 or so.
When he played, he was (mostly) solid - but certainly not to the level of the OG play the last month or so.

F - Dowrey was OK. Usually OK assignment wise, but not the biggest, strongest guy wrt maintaining leverage and creating a seam.

G - McGovern was very hit and miss. As we saw in his showcase at OT in the BW game - quickness of foot is not his strong point.....and all of the slants, pre-snap shifts, blitzes etc that forced him to employ proper footwork at the point of attack left him exposed at times - and led to a couple plays blowing up due to his assignment.

H - As has been the case throughout the season - Gaia and Gesicki far to often complete a play by blocking air. There has been some improvement throughout the year in both cases - - - - but it still happens too often.
Gaia is just WAY to slow and clumsy with his footwork to have any consistency at all in getting to his second level assignments (when called upon), and Gesicki - while there has been improvement from September to November - spends far too many plays "watching"

Overall, the Pass Pro inside the tackles was solid across the board against base fronts.
Both Wright and Palmer (the few snaps he was in there) really struggled against speed......and, of course, the numerous blitz packages caught PSU outmanned on occasion
There were also two drop backs where McSorley could be evaluated as "moving into pressure" (though he - as has been the norm - had 3X as many occasions when he bought time and "made a play")


There were other "non-offensive line" issues with the run game:

Namely:

Mc"Sore"ly made a handful of very bad "gives" (when he woulda' coulda' shoulda' "kept") in the zone-read game.
I am assuming this was primarily due to being banged up - - - - both leading to less confidence in being able to employ the quickness necessary to beat the containment, as well as he (and the staff) not wanting him to take any more hits than necessary (kid took a beating out there)

Barkley - kid is a beast - and has made "outstanding" look like run-of-the-mill.....but there were a couple situations (just a couple) where he didn't maximize his opportunities (but, of course, we've all been spoiled....and overall, he had another outstanding game)

The run game play-calling (almost certainly to keep things simple due to the changes up front) was back to being more-or-less as vanilla as it was the first couple weeks (which was a problem then)
Very little of the more "esoteric" stuff - - - - the pull/trap looks in the zone-read were few and far between (though one of those woulda' coulda' gone for BIG yardage - maybe a TD - if Gesicki had not been driven so far into his own backfield on the edge block that Barkley would have had to have taken a "two-transfer-bus-ride" to get around him and gain the edge), the "option the LBer" variations were gone from the scheme, and we only saw a couple of the "quick to the outside" plays (jet-sweep, outside zone stuff) that had been creeping more and more onto the play sheet lately.

Just worth a mention - - - Godwin, for a WR, is one hell of an "effort" guy in the run game blocking.
He is often - even when given very difficult assignments to carry out - very effective (and certainly very willing and physical) in his 2nd level blocking assignments. About as good as I can remember in recent years for a PSU WR.
Also, the holding call on Hamilton (IIRC) on the nice jet sweep run by Barkley.....was bullshit.

Also - just a "non-offensive line" item of note:
Reid (who has been a beast all year) probably had his worst game as a PSU CB (real nice job on PR though).
I expect, given the way that kid seems to "want it", that he will be hell on wheels in preparation this week - and have a big game at Rutgers.

______________________________


So - - - - overall - - - - IMO, just a confluence of events up front that led to the disappearance of the run game.

If it is possible to get Bates back to OG, just to re-establish some consistency inside - even though he was fine at OT - it might be the biggest potential "improvement" for the finishing kick to the season.
Other than that......there were enough "negative impact" items - that can be remedied this week - along with the fact that they won't be facing a defensive front with so many "moving parts", that I expect the run game issues may not look nearly so ugly next week.

Really ,really appreciate your input. TH ANKS

 

[bjf1991]

[
I haven't seen any RU games this year. What type of defense do they play and do you anticipate them giving a us a problem even with the patched up line. I thought they had a pretty decent DL (Hamilton maybe)?

I've only looked in detail at one RU game....so I wouldn't want to draw too many conclusions....but they certainly didn't show anywhere near the amount of movement that IU did. More similar to Iowa than IU

I thought the holding call on Hamilton was iffy as well, especially after seeing sicklels pulled to the ground on the last IU series.

Yep

There were some other things that bugged me with the officiating. I thought the re-kick for IU because of the kids kicking a ball into the endzone was bullshit. Either we get the ball where we had it in really good field position or IU gets a penalty tacked on. Not another kick. We were the ones that ended up being "penalized" for them not being able to control their stadium.
Also there was a sequence in the 3rd quarter (I think) where the IU player made a nice stop on Barkley but in front of everyone and on TV made a throat slashing gesture not once but twice and nothing.

No doubt. It was blatant - and repeated (as you pointed out). That was - we've been told - supposed to be an "automatic" 15 yard Unsportsmanlike.
The Ref obviously saw it - and had a "talk" with the offending party...but kept the flag in his pocket

I thought Kevin Wilson and his DC called an exceptional game. IU is not that far off from being a very good team.

Couldn't agree more

 

[mn78psu83]

Givens - though he doesn't play a ton of snaps - has been nearly unblockable in the 2nd half of games. And the DEs have been able to stay fresh and really use their athleticism on the edge to get after the QB in the second half

So much so that the other team has had to blatantly hold him. He is a compact beast at 6' 1" 275.

 

[sluggo72]

Thanks for this. I'm not an Xs and Os guy but really enjoy the depth with which you get into these things.

while I appreciate the efforts, more times than not, he gets things wrong.
For instance, how do you know it was 'read' play how do you know it wasn't a called give?
also 'Very little of the more "esoteric" stuff - - - - the pull/trap looks in the zone-read were few and far between' is wrong in least as far as the first 17 plays are concerned. In those plays there were 10 called passes, and 7 called runs (TM scrambled for a TD on a called pass), of the 7 called runs, 5 involved a pulling guard or pulling Tackle, only 2 were zone blocked.

This is were, imo, we run into trouble. Instead of the young mis matched guys just coming off the ball on a true zone scheme we have them trying to trap somebody and the play gets blown up. If we just zone it, get a couple of double teams we wont/shouldn't get any leakage and could get SB a crease.
Go back and look at the early 4th-2 when Tommy Stevens comes in. We try to run a trap, and it gets blown up. If we had zone blocked that play, we would have had the first down.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Biggest issue with the "run game" this past Saturday was really quite straight forward.....IU was "run blitzing" 7 and 8 mean on a near every play basis. TM did not have his best game in terms of "pre-" and "post-snap" reads this past Saturday and handed the ball off directly into an IU jail-house-break run-blitz being shown on both a pre- and post-snap basis over and over and over again - especially on First Down. This is just wasting a down and putting yourself behind the sticks - I'll buy that it was "okay" to do to keep Indiana biting on the threat of the run and to make them think you would not go away from that gameplan, but it went on for too long and we wasted at least a full quarter of play. From the latter half of the 3rd Qtr onward, it was quite obvious that IU was "selling out" to stop the run given that PSU was able to hit receiver after receiver that was completely uncovered with no IU defender even in the same zipcode.

The reality is that if people are going to commit 7 and 8 players to stopping the run (i.e., within two yards of the LOS and coming forward at the snap), there are very few teams that can consistently rack up big yardage on the ground (especially when two starting OL, who were replacing two injured starting OL, go out of the game injured).

 

[bjf1991]

Biggest issue with the "run game" this past Saturday was really quite straight forward.....IU was "run blitzing" 7 and 8 mean on a near every play basis. TM did not have his best game in terms of "pre-" and "post-snap" reads this past Saturday and handed the ball off directly into an IU jail-house-break run-blitz being shown on both a pre- and post-snap basis over and over and over again - especially on First Down. This is just wasting a down and putting yourself behind the sticks - I'll buy that it was "okay" to do to keep Indiana biting on the threat of the run and to make them think you would not go away from that gameplan, but it went on for too long and we wasted at least a full quarter of play. From the latter half of the 3rd Qtr onward, it was quite obvious that IU was "selling out" to stop the run given that PSU was able to hit receiver after receiver that was completely uncovered with no IU defender even in the same zipcode.

The reality is that if people are going to commit 7 and 8 players to stopping the run (i.e., within two yards of the LOS and coming forward at the snap), there are very few teams that can consistently rack up big yardage on the ground (especially when two starting OL, who were replacing two injured starting OL, go out of the game injured).

Yep

ie:
"That was a problem....and a lot of the credit should go to the IU defense and the schemes employed by their staff.
That was - IMO - far and away the prevailing issue wrt the run game difficulties."

That is simply the IU defensive scheme......they do it every week (more or less)
That doesn't mean that "knowing it is coming" allows you to simply exploit it.

They did (do) a real nice job of showing multiple possible looks pre-snap....and often shifting/switching at the last second, or even post-snap.

They run it pretty well......and PSU didn't connect on as many of the plays downfield (though they came close, a lot) to be able to exploit it for as many points as they would have liked to.

 

[sluggo72]

Biggest issue with the "run game" this past Saturday was really quite straight forward.....IU was "run blitzing" 7 and 8 mean on a near every play basis. TM did not have his best game in terms of "pre-" and "post-snap" reads this past Saturday and handed the ball off directly into an IU jail-house-break run-blitz being shown on both a pre- and post-snap basis over and over and over again - especially on First Down. This is just wasting a down and putting yourself behind the sticks - I'll buy that it was "okay" to do to keep Indiana biting on the threat of the run and to make them think you would not go away from that gameplan, but it went on for too long and we wasted at least a full quarter of play. From the latter half of the 3rd Qtr onward, it was quite obvious that IU was "selling out" to stop the run given that PSU was able to hit receiver after receiver that was completely uncovered with no IU defender even in the same zipcode.

The reality is that if people are going to commit 7 and 8 players to stopping the run (i.e., within two yards of the LOS and coming forward at the snap), there are very few teams that can consistently rack up big yardage on the ground (especially when two starting OL, who were replacing two injured starting OL, go out of the game injured).

See Bushwood, I think we should be able to block 7 (we have 5 ol + TE puts you a hat on a hat to the front side, control the BS with the bootleg fake), 8 they cant cover, 3 wr + TE so if its a run, we need to get to a pass.

 

[olelion]

Biggest issue with the "run game" this past Saturday was really quite straight forward.....IU was "run blitzing" 7 and 8 mean on a near every play basis. TM did not have his best game in terms of "pre-" and "post-snap" reads this past Saturday and handed the ball off directly into an IU jail-house-break run-blitz being shown on both a pre- and post-snap basis over and over and over again - especially on First Down. This is just wasting a down and putting yourself behind the sticks - I'll buy that it was "okay" to do to keep Indiana biting on the threat of the run and to make them think you would not go away from that gameplan, but it went on for too long and we wasted at least a full quarter of play. From the latter half of the 3rd Qtr onward, it was quite obvious that IU was "selling out" to stop the run given that PSU was able to hit receiver after receiver that was completely uncovered with no IU defender even in the same zipcode.

The reality is that if people are going to commit 7 and 8 players to stopping the run (i.e., within two yards of the LOS and coming forward at the snap), there are very few teams that can consistently rack up big yardage on the ground (especially when two starting OL, who were replacing two injured starting OL, go out of the game injured).

FRTT, good pick up on the UM QB.. Appears to have a broken clavicle

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

See Bushwood, I think we should be able to block 7 (we have 5 ol + TE puts you a hat on a hat to the front side, control the BS with the bootleg fake), 8 they cant cover, 3 wr + TE so if its a run, we need to get to a pass.

Wrong, blitzing LBs typically blitz "gaps", they don't sit there and wait for you to put a hat on them. Beyond stupid to believe a sea of humanity between the tackles of some 13 or 14 people (i.e., resembling a "goal line stand" situation) is going to provide lots of room to run. The reality is that it doesn't matter if OL get on a man, there are just too many bodies at the LOS with run-blitzers shooting every gap to have any holes to run in to get to the "next level" - absurd to believe that there should be. BTW, LMFAO that your beloved skunk-bears stunk the joint up @Kinnick in their first real "road test" just like I predicted they would!!! Gee, scUM's OL sucks, they only gained 30-some yards against Iowa.....LMFAO!

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

FRTT, good pick up on the UM QB.. Appears to have a broken clavicle

Funniest part about that was the number of posing-troll scUM lurkers who told me how stupid I was again.....and that, rest-assured, Speight was not hurt in the least and would be starting this week against Indiana.....too funny!

 

[sluggo72]

Wrong, blitzing LBs typically blitz "gaps", they don't sit there and wait for you to put a hat on them. Beyond stupid to believe a sea of humanity between the tackles of some 13 or 14 people (i.e., resembling a "goal line stand" situation) is going to provide lots of room to run. The reality is that it doesn't matter if OL get on a man, there are just too many bodies at the LOS with run-blitzers shooting every gap to have any holes to run in to get to the "next level" - absurd to believe that there should be. BTW, LMFAO that your beloved skunk-bears stunk the joint up @Kinnick in their first real "road test" just like I predicted they would!!! Gee, scUM's OL sucks, they only gained 30-some yards against Iowa.....LMFAO!

what are you talking about. Let's get this clear I am not one of your imaginary made up closet scUM fans. Never have been , never posted anything to make anyone believe that
Now second, go get your Football for Dummies book , and see how to block 7. If you were the OL coach and told the OC/HC 'coach we can't block them they are bringing seven' you would probably get fired on the spot. I have to leave now, have fun, but if you want to know how to handle 7 I'll show you tomorrow. Just ask

 

[bjf1991]

what are you talking about. Let's get this clear I am not one of your imaginary made up closet scUM fans. Never have been , never posted anything to make anyone believe that
Now second, go get your Football for Dummies book , and see how to block 7. If you were the OL coach and told the OC/HC 'coach we can't block them they are bringing seven' you would probably get fired on the spot. I have to leave now, have fun, but if you want to know how to handle 7 I'll show you tomorrow. Just ask

My guess is you probably "handle" 4 1/2.......not that there is anything wrong with that

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

My guess is you probably "handle" 4 1/2.......not that there is anything wrong with that

He only handles 7 with his mouth.....

 

[sluggo72]

He only handles 7 with his mouth.....

Now. Buschwood I told you I'd tell you how to do it tomorrow if you just ask

 

[sluggo72]

My guess is you probably "handle" 4 1/2.......not that there is anything wrong with that

If you have 4 1/2 front side check it weak now you 3 over 2 1/2. I'll take may chances

 

[Countrylion]

Good observation on Reid. Defensively, we've struggled against pro-style QB's (UM, Purdue, Indy). I thought our coverage was soft. IMHO, we are at risk against MSU if we can't get our o-line straitened out.

What do UM, Purdue & Indy have in common? Yes they were all on the road.

 

[Obliviax]

What do UM, Purdue & Indy have in common? Yes they were all on the road.

excellent pont!