Some interesting Penn State box scores this year

Submitted by Maizen on October 16th, 2017 at 10:46 AM

For UM to win Saturday they have to protect the football and commit to running the ball. Only watched bits and pieces of the Pitt game but the IU-PSU game ended 45-14 but was strangely much closer than that. IU scored two special teams TD's (one on a KO return, the other on a muffed IU punt). They also scored twice off IU turnovers on a shortened field and got the benefit of a blatant OPI flag picked up in the endzone on another TD. They really only had one sustained TD drive all game. They look like a slightly better version the team they were last year. They couldn't block IU on offense and were getting suprisignly gashed on the ground one defense. This is a game JOK needs to use his legs as Ramsey did and not commit any turnovers. Do that and Michigan has a good shot at a win.

Comments

MGoGrendel

October 16th, 2017 at 1:54 PM ^

but the yards gained tell a different story. PSU had 284 yards passing and 295 yards rushing.  With that, they only scored 21 points, 5 of which were in the first half.  They were manhandling Iowa, but the score didn't reflect it.

Iowa had 191 yards passing and 82 yards rushing, yet they scored 19 points and were leading PSU until the last play of the game.

The box score doesn't prove the point of the OP, which may be why it wasn't shown as INTERESTING.

Squash34

October 16th, 2017 at 4:20 PM ^

I was with you until the last part. I think all 3 are interesting. People see to think Iowa held psu offense in check and no one else has. The truth is Iowa did not despite the close game. Whereas, game with bigger margins of victory that makes people who did not watch think it's a blowout "manhandling" are actually examples of the psu offense getting shutdown.
It's kinda bazaar, and therefore, interesting

stephenrjking

October 16th, 2017 at 11:17 AM ^

If PSU were the dominant, explosive outfit we're told they are (as opposed to a good team with one great player) I think they'd be able to get more than the 350 ish yards needed to achieve parity with Pitt. And it tells us something about PSU's D that Pitt was able to grind up so much time and yardage on them.

TrueBlue2003

October 16th, 2017 at 12:11 PM ^

Pitt had really low YPA (4.6) and YPC (3.4) numbers so the PSU defense was doing something right here.  The TOP doesn't really tell me Piit was very successful. 

They scored 14 points, 8 of which came on a fourth quarter TD when down by a lot.  They had abysmal yard per play numbers.  PSU had multiple one-play TD drives and plays with tempo.  That allowed Pitt to have the ball for a lot of clock time but they weren't very sucessful when they did have it.

Hail-Storm

October 16th, 2017 at 4:20 PM ^

making the IU and Pitt teams work all the way down the field to get a score not giving up a big play.  Similar to what MSU did to us, especially in the rain.  Having a big lead can skew the box score if a team is allowing the other team to eat clock while ceding yards instead of points.

This all relies on your belief that Franklin understands game theory though. 

stephenrjking

October 16th, 2017 at 11:07 AM ^

Wow, you've managed something that isn't all that common. These are substantive contributions that illuminate the type of games #2 PSU is playing beyond the score lines.

They didn't manhandle Indiana. Indiana imploded early, got on its feet, and played PSU straight up the rest of the way, in Happy Valley. These boxes are good summaries for those who didn't see all of those games, which is most of us.

jackw8542

October 16th, 2017 at 11:58 AM ^

I watched part of the Pitt game and thought the two teams were pretty evenly matched with Pitt having a good chance to win.

What is interesting (to me, at least) is that much lesser defenses have been able to stymie PSU's run game.  Against IU, PSU went to the pass, but McSorley is a gunslinger who may well throw some picks with Long, Hill, Watson, Metellus and Kinnel on the field.

I continue to like our chances.

One column I saw (think it was Best and Worst) showed that O'Korn had 4 passes dropped on easily catchable balls.  If those had been caught, he would have been 14 of 20.  If DPJ had been half a step faster, he would have been 15 of 20.  I am not ready to give up on JOK, as he is one tough, competitive guy.

Go Blue!

TrueBlue2003

October 16th, 2017 at 12:17 PM ^

I didn't think JOK was that bad Saturday.  His throw to Perry that went through his fingers was only inches from perfect and was still catchable (once again, no help from receivers). His throw to Crawford was the wrong decision but still required a missed DPI for the incompletion.  He only missed DPJ by a foot.

Call me crazy, but I feel like those are much closer to hitting than missing a guy by yards.  He certainly has his flaws, but I think he was better than the stats Saturday. 

Maizen

October 16th, 2017 at 12:44 PM ^

JOK avergaed 2.9 YPA. He overthrew a wide open DPJ, he overthrew a wide open Grant Perry, and he threw into double coverage on a two man route where the other player (Gentry) was blitheringly wide open. He didn't take any sacks and managed to avoid turnovers, which were good things, but make no mistake he was terrible Saturday.

MI Expat NY

October 16th, 2017 at 1:44 PM ^

I agree.  I especially thought that on the live view.  On the replay from behind, it didn't look so blatant, but angles and speed of replays have the ability to distort (like for instance on the onside kick non-recovery.  At full speed, there was pretty clearly a bobble of the ball, slowing it way down clouded that a bit).  I think if he times his jump right that's an easy catch on a good pass.

mgowild

October 16th, 2017 at 12:40 PM ^

O'Korn also had an interception overturned because of pass interference, made two or three throws that could've easily been picks, and finished with 58 yards passing. The one hope I have is that our success running the ball the past few weeks will open up more opportunities in the passing game, but I'm not confident O'Korn can take advantage.

APBlue

October 16th, 2017 at 12:56 PM ^

An effective play action pass would certainly bring those LB's and safeties closer to the line and open up some passing lanes for those intermediate routes.  

I'm also waiting on a bigger dose of those roll-out passes to the tight end that sneaks out into the flat.  Whatever happened to that play?  

BassDude138

October 16th, 2017 at 2:11 PM ^

Exactly this. The TE crossing routes and flats are what killed Purdue, and the play action was opening up huge zones behind the LB's against MSU, but it was a monsoon. I think the offense should try and build on the rushing success from last week, then use the PA to start attacking the intermeiate/crossing routes where it is a higher percentage throw, and guys have room to run after the catch. I am fine with the occasional deep shot, but it seems like that is the go to on PA, and they rarely connect.

Squash34

October 16th, 2017 at 4:52 PM ^

They ran the TE mesh a few times, one was dropped after hitting McKeon in the hands. I also remember at least one PA to the TE in the flat. Wheatley caught it and got a first.
They actually don't really do play action with a deep shot in mind as much as people probably think. The fact that they are rarely completed probably makes them stick out more. But, most of the passes, pa or drop back,where designed to go short or intermediate routes.

Squash34

October 16th, 2017 at 4:40 PM ^

Franklin padded the passing stats in the IU game. The starting offense was in on their last drive with 6 min left and up 21. They then went mostly no huddle and marched down the field passing. The drive ended with a hb pass for a 25 yard td. I don't think they ran once.