Moorehead

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Not much you can do with such an AWFUL OL. Quite frankly McSorley ability to "run away" saved the day. No "system" will work without an OL.

Yea, he was "running away" while throwing for 335 yards, a TD and 0 sacks....LMFAO at the complete nonsense of you moronic trolls as evidenced by your dire need to cast anything and everything with extreme negativity and make ludicrous and anti-factual statements.

 

[LukeIamYourFather]

I have a different take on that call -- I have no problem with going for it on 4th and extremely short, but math statistics say you have to do the same thing each time you face the situation for it to "pay off" either way you choose (i.e., the likely worst thing you can do is change strategy mid-stream). A bit like hitting on 15 or not hitting on 15 when dealer has color showing in BJ - neither is a better strategy than the other, but whichever you are going to do, you need to do it every time you face the situation or you mess up the "pay off" statistics. IMO, if you go for it the first time, you should go for it the second time as well because making it or not making it is not that much better than a coin-flip (probably 60-40 in favor of making on 4th and 1 to 2 yards). However, given that CJF lost his nerve and we kicked the second time probably means we should have kicked the first time as well and because we didn't we gave away 3 points unnecessarily (i.e., had we gone for 2nd one and made it....score 7.....we don't sacrifice 3 points).

Every time is a different statistical event. Hitting and not hitting the previous 100 times has no bearing on the probability in the next event.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Every time is a different statistical event. Hitting and not hitting the previous 100 times has no bearing on the probability in the next event.

But doing something different each time you face the situation DOES impact the "payoff" of the various paths because of the difference between a TD and FG. You're incorrect that doing something different relative to the larger payoff versus the smaller does not impact the various trees in the "payoff" pricing. The worst thing you can do is to keep flipping back and forth when facing the situation. If you're going to go for the lower payoff but higher probability - a fine strategy especially long-term, then CJF should have employed it on the first one.....by not doing it, he needlessly gave away 3 points.

 

[Judge Smails]

Whilst we are raking our coaching staff over the coals after a thrilling (and possibly coaches-job-saving) OT win, why, for the 2nd week, did PSU go for it on 4th down early in the game? Against Minny, PSU could have kicked the FG but eschewed that to go for it (admittedly Barkley came close to getting it, but still), wound up turning it over on downs, and Minny marched down the field for the first score of the game. Similar to the UM game last week, where PSU went for it, if memory serves, TM got sacked which set up great field position for UM and their first score. I realize that the defense has issues but then why risk failure which puts the defense in a bad position? Against Minny, especially, PSU would have benefited from a conservative approach rather than leaving points on the field.

And the fans booed when he didnt go for it on 4th and 1 from the one. Cant win.

 

[Frabjous]

No doubt I have a firm grasp of the obvious and I'm loath to point at individuals, but # 88 needs to know where the first down marker is. Make your cut a yard past the line: that is football 101. And it looked like he was a spectator, not a blocker, when TM snuck into the corner of the end zone, and TM got clobbered unnecessarily.

 

[Sooner Lion]

This was the first game in which McSorley used the option to run. I know it seems to make little sense to fame to one of the best running backs in the country, but if the run option is to work, the qb has to run occasionally. Otherwise defenses will continue to key on the running back.

In the future McSorley needs to run more, not less. Otherwise, why recruit anyone other than a drop back qb?

100% agree. QB has to run 1-3 times for the RPO to be successful.

 

[SR108]

The last play was the best / most efficient exchange I have seen so far this season btw Trace and SB.

The fact that Trace actually kept the ball earlier in the second half and made some good yardage probably helped out a lot on that play. The unblocked D end got up field and hesitated just enough for Barkley. The OLine also blocked well on the play. In order for Barkley to get more room, Trace has to run with some success. It would also be nice to see a couple more running plays besides the read option.

 

[PennState_one]

It seems like PSU players are still learning this offense, even basic fundamentals. The last play was the best / most efficient exchange I have seen so far this season btw Trace and SB. Typically the read and exchange takes forever ....

Exactly, Moorehead didn't start really lighting it up at Fordham until his 2nd year. Unfortunately, we need to be patient and let these kids get a full grasp of his concepts. He is obviously trying to make the mental aspect as simple as he can for now. Time will make things better and especially another off season.

I truly believe next year will be much easier for us as fans to watch.

 

[Eurotrash1]

I'm not a huge fan of this offense either. However, this is the direction college football is moving.

 

[PSUSignore]

I have a different take on that call -- I have no problem with going for it on 4th and extremely short, but math statistics say you have to do the same thing each time you face the situation for it to "pay off" either way you choose (i.e., the likely worst thing you can do is change strategy mid-stream). A bit like hitting on 15 or not hitting on 15 when dealer has color showing in BJ - neither is a better strategy than the other, but whichever you are going to do, you need to do it every time you face the situation or you mess up the "pay off" statistics. IMO, if you go for it the first time, you should go for it the second time as well because making it or not making it is not that much better than a coin-flip (probably 60-40 in favor of making on 4th and 1 to 2 yards). However, given that CJF lost his nerve and we kicked the second time probably means we should have kicked the first time as well and because we didn't we gave away 3 points unnecessarily (i.e., had we gone for 2nd one and made it....score 7.....we don't sacrifice 3 points).

You are overlooking huge factors about statistics. First, you're talking about taking the same action repeatedly because statistically it will work out more often than not in the end. Assuming that the action in question does favor the offense over time statistically, that's only true over the long term. Statistical results are based on analysis of large quantities of events to determine the most frequent outcome. The coaches are making decisions with short term results in mind where statistics are far from the most important factor in the decision.

Second, you are assuming that every time we are faced with a 4th & 1 the conditions and variables are exactly the same, which is the only way that statistical trials would be relevant. Every single 4th & 1 decision is different. The players on the field, the position on the field, the hash mark we're on, the time on the clock, the current score, etc. There are tons of variables that need to be considered and only in cases where the variables are identical would your theory of "do it the same way all the time, eventually it will work" hold any water, again assuming it has been shown that going for it in those situations results in a conversion more often than not.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, it's almost as if you are assuming the events are somewhat randomized, like playing roulette or blackjack (if you aren't counting cards), and that statistically the event favors Penn State in the long term. Both might be inaccurate. The results of a 4th & 1 conversion are not random. The players have direct ability to influence the outcome after the decision is made, while in random events that is not true.

One could also argue that the expected long term results do not favor Penn State based on the past 3 seasons. Our short yardage running game has not been good. Our OL has not been good. Our 3rd down conversions haven't been good. What if the long term results, given the variables we know about, lead to a negative expectation (not converting is more common) in the long term? Then your theory of always going for it would result in really bad results.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

You are overlooking huge factors about statistics. First, you're talking about taking the same action repeatedly because statistically it will work out more often than not in the end. Assuming that the action in question does favor the offense over time statistically, that's only true over the long term. Statistical results are based on analysis of large quantities of events to determine the most frequent outcome. The coaches are making decisions with short term results in mind where statistics are far from the most important factor in the decision.

Second, you are assuming that every time we are faced with a 4th & 1 the conditions and variables are exactly the same, which is the only way that statistical trials would be relevant. Every single 4th & 1 decision is different. The players on the field, the position on the field, the hash mark we're on, the time on the clock, the current score, etc. There are tons of variables that need to be considered and only in cases where the variables are identical would your theory of "do it the same way all the time, eventually it will work" hold any water, again assuming it has been shown that going for it in those situations results in a conversion more often than not.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, it's almost as if you are assuming the events are somewhat randomized, like playing roulette or blackjack (if you aren't counting cards), and that statistically the event favors Penn State in the long term. Both might be inaccurate. The results of a 4th & 1 conversion are not random. The players have direct ability to influence the outcome after the decision is made, while in random events that is not true.

One could also argue that the expected long term results do not favor Penn State based on the past 3 seasons. Our short yardage running game has not been good. Our OL has not been good. Our 3rd down conversions haven't been good. What if the long term results, given the variables we know about, lead to a negative expectation (not converting is more common) in the long term? Then your theory of always going for it would result in really bad results.

Now you've done it