It Was A Slow Turning Engine: Penn State 34, Northwestern 13
by Kevin HD on Nov 1, 2009 2:04 PM EST
in Game Reviews
58 comments
It was an easy start for Northwestern against a BBDS defense that came out in its softest form. Poor tackling and bad angles helped with Wildcats score early and easily with six and ten-yard gains all the way down the field. Before being injured, Kafka was taking the easy slant routes and running successfully when the zone defense spread out too thin.
A lot of the game wrap-ups today cite Kafka's injury as the setback Northwestern would never overcome, but I'm not sure he would have maintained his early consistency. The veteran quarterback was also completing 77% of his passes, 10 points higher than the season average he has posted against lesser defenses. I suspect we would have seen some regression to the mean.
Northwestern was winning the game by working long drives that kept the ball away from Daryll Clark. They ended up in 19 third down situations against Penn State's defense, the most any team has totaled all season, and converted early. Combine that with the free downs (we'll get to that in a second), and the best defense was a slow, clock eating offense.
The turnover stat in the second half read Penn State 0, Northwestern 1; as often happens in football, the stats fail us here.
Three times the defense forced a punt, only to see possession slip away through mistakes. A late hit turned a 4th and short into a first down. The punt return team had an illegal substitution that allowed the Wildcats to keep the ball. Finally, and most painfully, was the fumbled snap on a Northwestern punt that they somehow back-yard-balled into a first down that could have ended with Penn State ball inside the red zone.
Northwestern ran the kind of "you'll have to throw to win" defense we saw a lot of earlier in the year, yet Penn State was too stubborn to counter it. Corey Wootton, who played as well as expected, led a blowing-up of the Penn State o-line that never allowed Royster to get any momentum.
It wasn't until almost 25 minutes into the game that the offensive brain trust did the obvious: five passes, two QB runs (one a busted play), zero Royster carries, and the first Penn State touchdown.
In the end Clark finished with 274 yards and a QB rating a couple points above his average. Royster had 118 yards, but just a 3.3 average excluding his 69-yard TD run.
The defense fixed the holes and posted a second half shutout, but they'll have to play a complete game next week if they want to beat Ohio State.
0 recs |
58 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
ANNND
We’re 11th in the AP poll and 10th in the USA Today poll.
Somehow, someway, USC is 12th and 13th respectively. I really want some justification for that too. Something other than “well, they’re USC.”
And really, what are Virginia Tech and Oklahoma doing in the top 25 with 3 losses, 8 games into the season? The polls are a joke.
Luring recruits with my new "Posting HD" scheme since '08.
by 06Lion on Nov 1, 2009 2:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, "They're USC" is the only justification you'll ever get.
It’s stupid, but who didn’t see that coming? We’re probably lucky they’re not still in front of us (and they almost are). While it’s good news for us, I don’t know how Ohio State jumped all the way to #12 just for beating down on NMSU.
by dawsonPSU10 on Nov 1, 2009 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"well, they're VT and Oklahoma."
Deus nobiscum, quis contra?
by chocochuck02 on Nov 1, 2009 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
However in positive news
Temple received 1 vote in each of the polls
by nitlions057 on Nov 1, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
WHOOOOOO!!!
Deus nobiscum, quis contra?
by chocochuck02 on Nov 1, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I made the call of 12th
in the Late Late Late game thread this morning. And they are, in essence, 12th in the Coaches’ Poll as well, as they’re behind Ohio State by just one point.
But I’ll play Devil’s Advocate – who else do you jump ahead of them? You’re other 1-loss teams are Houston, Pittsburgh, and Utah. Do any of these teams really have a better resume or team in general than a 2-loss USC? You might have an argument for Pitt, but it’s a stretch to automatically put Utah or Houston ahead of them. And then the 2-loss teams – are Ohio State or Miami (FL) any better? You can go down the list of 2-loss teams, and USC has the reasons to be ahead of them.
Sadly, I think the pollsters got it right. But in my mind, it has less to do with “They’re USC” and more with the fact that a lot of the teams in the top 25 (and nation in general) just don’t look impressive week-in, week-out. USC isn’t perfect, but they’re probably still better than most of the teams in the top 25 right now.
"In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
by IcersGuy on Nov 1, 2009 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And they won't be behind tO$U after next week.
Meh.
Deus nobiscum, quis contra?
by chocochuck02 on Nov 1, 2009 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Personally
I think you can easily rank Pitt and Houston ahead of USC, especially Houston.
Luring recruits with my new "Posting HD" scheme since '08.
by 06Lion on Nov 1, 2009 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd do that right now
U$C has been grossly overrated all year. Are they a top 20 team? Probably. Top 12? No way.
Let's Go State!
by Gopher Broke on Nov 1, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But.. But..
They beat ZOMG Pryor and tOSU! lol
Deus nobiscum, quis contra?
by chocochuck02 on Nov 1, 2009 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I'm just down on all the teams this year
because I just don’t see a team that is “clearly” ahead of USC at this point. Again, Pitt is probably the closest, and Houston has a good team. And I wouldn’t complain if both had jumped USC. But I understand the thinking right now, and it’s hard for me to say definitively they do or don’t belong in the top 12 because I don’t know if there are many teams that have proven they deserve to be in the top 12 at this point.
That said, I still think USC has one more loss in them before season’s end.
"In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
by IcersGuy on Nov 1, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
*"clearly" ahead of USC at this point
you know, other than the 11 teams already ranked ahead of them. (And perhaps LSU shouldn’t be there either, but that’s a different topic.)
Wanted to make that clarification…
"In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
by IcersGuy on Nov 1, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Houston lost to UTEP, gave up 58 points. TO UTEP!
And they just allowed 43 to Southern Miss yesterday.
Deus nobiscum, quis contra?
by chocochuck02 on Nov 1, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To put this in perspective
Houston allowed more points in those two games (101) against.. uh.. subpar teams, than we have all season (84).
Deus nobiscum, quis contra?
by chocochuck02 on Nov 1, 2009 4:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They've also beaten three pretty decent teams ...
… in Oklahoma State, Mississippi State, and Texas Tech. And it’s not like USC doesn’t have an embarrassing loss (is Washington really that much better than UTEP?) to go with the beatdown that Oregon gave them.
And just as we laugh at the folks who think winning 13-7 means you suck, it’s silly to completely ignore teams that win 55-48. One way to win is to make sure the other team can’t score. The other is to just put up an absurd number of points. You can argue about which is more effective all you want, but either way it’s a win.
by SpartanDan on Nov 1, 2009 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Anything can happen in any one game,
but I think the greater point is that Houston has NO defense, and while Penn State got blasted for winning 13-6 last year, it proved they could win with offense OR defense. Houston seems to only have half a football team.
by jimbo2psu on Nov 1, 2009 7:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you can win without a defense, more power to you. Being able to win both shootouts and defensive battles is good, but do you really have to be able to win a defensive battle if your offense is good enough to make sure you don’t end up in any?
by SpartanDan on Nov 1, 2009 7:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then you're defending every team in the defense-less Big 12.
You can’t have your cake and eat it. You wanna go by resumes? Houston isn’t a top 12 team. You want to go by you think the number 12 team can beat all of the 108 teams behind them? Fine, Houston isn’t a top 12 team. I’m not saying they’re not a top 25 team, I’m not saying they’re worse than USC, I’m saying they don’t belong where they are.
Deus nobiscum, quis contra?
by chocochuck02 on Nov 1, 2009 8:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Or, to reword the question.
I have no problem with PSU at 11. I’m not gonna cry bloody murder. But you don’t think there’s any team in the multiverse worse than Penn State (at 11) but better that Houston (at 12)?
Deus nobiscum, quis contra?
by chocochuck02 on Nov 1, 2009 8:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As much as it hurts me to do so
I’d actually say that Washington is MUCH better than UTEP. As a loss, unfortunately WU>UTEP. It’s still a horrible USC loss that shouldn’t have lost, but luckily they suck and are overrated. WU beat USC, and almost kept it pretty close with LSU. Granted both teams were and still are overrated, but the fact remains UTEP is still a very bad loss.
by dawsonPSU10 on Nov 1, 2009 11:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW, Washington also beat a now-ranked Arizona team
"In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
by IcersGuy on Nov 1, 2009 11:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One other thing
Sarkisian being a former USC coach may have been a big part of that win. The perfect game plan can certainly minimize the effects of the talent gap. I don’t know the x’s and o’s of football well enough to know if UW had a the perfect game plan against USC that night, but it’s certainly possible. In which case, the loss unfortunately becomes more forgivable.
by PSUisMyHeart on Nov 2, 2009 12:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No loss is forgivable.
I said this before, but i don’t care if it was Sarkisian, Jimmy V, Herb Brooks, and an army of Ditka clones, with Uncle Rico at quarterback. I don’t care if its to an lousy Washington squad, an awful UTEP squad, or a top 5 Iowa squad. USC lost. Twice.
Deus nobiscum, quis contra?
by chocochuck02 on Nov 2, 2009 1:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd Pay A Lot of Money
to see Uncle Rico at quarterback.
Of course I'm home. I'm always home. I'm uncool.
by WestPointLion on Nov 2, 2009 9:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That team would be nigh unbeatable
I wasn’t forgiving their loss, just adding something to further compare it to the UTEP loss. And I definitely think the UTEP loss was worse.
by PSUisMyHeart on Nov 2, 2009 10:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
very few losses, ever,
are worse than that UTEP loss.
BSD
by Kevin HD on Nov 2, 2009 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All those teams were preseason top ten
Obviously they should still be ranked because the preseason rankings told us they were good.
by Brett Brown on Nov 1, 2009 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Iowa is still getting screwed by the rankings
I know they win ugly, but do the pollsters really think that either TCU or Boise St would still be unbeaten with Iowa’s schedule?
by Brett Brown on Nov 1, 2009 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I really wanted USC up higher than us
just to show how crooked and irrational the system is. But then, this is close enough
by Mr. Rosewater on Nov 1, 2009 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good summary
While I think Kafka would have put more points on the board, like we saw in the second half, it was only a matter of time before the defense adapted and wore them down. I say that now with confidence, but I was beyond scared yesterday. Since it was the second road game in a row, I kind of sympathize with the playcalling early, since I probably would have kept it conservative as well.
This is just more evidence to add to the list that the old Paterno-ball strategy isn’t going to make things any easier on the road when you have such dynamic offensive weapons. Open it up, and don’t go turtle, and the offense can run at peak performance, otherwise, they know exactly what’s coming, instead of not knowing which receiver to cover (see Drake and Brown receptions), and getting spread out and beaten.
by dawsonPSU10 on Nov 1, 2009 2:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Spread out and beaten?
You do know about the new family standards here, right?
Deus nobiscum, quis contra?
by chocochuck02 on Nov 1, 2009 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We did? Since when?
Alright then, I guess I’ll keep the dirty stuff to myself, lol. ;-)
by dawsonPSU10 on Nov 1, 2009 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"going conservative"
I am really curious to know since when running the ball AT ALL has become conservative and turtling? I understand they were stuffing the box, and that’s why we called pass plays at a 2 to 1 clip. We stalled early on poorly thrown balls to Zug downfield. That’s lack of execution, not conservative. You don’t need to go QB14 every single play to still call an agressive game.
by PSUinBOSSton on Nov 1, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kevin mentioned the 3.3 avg for Royster minus the TD run
To me, even if they were stacking the box, we still tried the up the middle for 2, 3 yards a bit too much before opening things up. Again, that’s just what I remember, but there seemed to be clear differences in philosophy between the beginning of the game and the way we were playing by the end. Again, just IMO, from what I remember, I don’t have any numbers to back myself up.
by dawsonPSU10 on Nov 1, 2009 3:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Poorly thrown balls to Zug?
Zug dropped two well-thrown passes in the first half that would’ve been sure touchdowns, one in the end zone, and the other when he was wide open with nothing but green between him and the end zone. Clark did have his share of missed throws, but we really could’ve broken the game open before halftime if Zug had held on to those two.
Let's Go State!
by Gopher Broke on Nov 1, 2009 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mostly agree
I don’t think that second pass was a TD, “just” a 50 yard gain. The safety was right there.
But it at the very least keeps that last NW field goal off the board, would have probably led to a PSU FG, and maybe a touchdown. That was a 6 to 10 point drop.
Clark missed some targets like QBs do, but he also had some incredible passes right on the money to WRs in stride.
BSD
by Kevin HD on Nov 1, 2009 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was more talking about the two on the first drive after the fumble.
If we are talking about the one in the endzone right before the field goal, then I don’t agree. He was covered and got a hand on it, but it was forced and would’ve been a miraculous catch. You are right about the deeper ball he dropped being well thrown, although I think he would’ve been tackled pretty immediately. Either way, in regards to playcalling, it’s not like they were conservative calls, but poor execution.
by PSUinBOSSton on Nov 1, 2009 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree 100%
Clark’s throw to Zug in the end zone was perfect. Zug got both hands on it and just dropped it. The CB had no play on it whatsoever, just a mental error.
"We heard all that talk all week about the SEC and their speed, but we knew personally that they weren't nearly as tough as us."
-Tony Hunt
by Cpiritual27 on Nov 1, 2009 7:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In the back center of the end zone?
If we are talking about the same play, then he got one hand around the CBs head and couldn’t get the other in position.
Doesn’t matter, my point the whole time was that it was not a conservative game plan, just poor execution. In either my or your scenario, it was poor execution on an aggressive play call.
by PSUinBOSSton on Nov 1, 2009 8:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we were talking about different plays
I agree. The first drive resulting in a FG was not based on playcalling.
"We heard all that talk all week about the SEC and their speed, but we knew personally that they weren't nearly as tough as us."
-Tony Hunt
by Cpiritual27 on Nov 1, 2009 9:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I went back and took a look. You were talking about the first play of the drive, I the last. Wow, we had more wasted opportunities than I realized there.
by PSUinBOSSton on Nov 2, 2009 12:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of Zug...
my kid was watching some new Hotwheels cartoon on cartoon network and there was some super-killing machine robot in the episode who’s name was – what else – Zug. Couldn’t keep from laughing.
One man doing the work of 100's for the good of 1000's
by rahpsu92 on Nov 1, 2009 7:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
PATERNO GOT IT RIGHT
When asked about the change in strategy that PSU employed to beat Northwestern,
" Their quarteback go hurt is the only strategy change that we had."
Albert Unser believed in PSU.
I DO NOT WANT TO PLAY OREGON IN THE ROSE BOWL.
THEY PUT ON THE BEST PERFORMANCE IVE SEEN ALL YEAR.
Elizabeth, the only person on earth working at the same job longer than JoePa.
by joefromboalsburg on Nov 1, 2009 4:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It's going to be very hard
for us to get into the Rose Bowl. I wouldn’t start worrying about something that probably won’t happen.
BSD
by Kevin HD on Nov 1, 2009 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Iowa has to either win out, or lose two……either of which are not likely.
by RitterPSU on Nov 1, 2009 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Even if Iow wins out
Texas and Fla/Bama have to lose once, which looks a lot less likely now.
BSD
by Kevin HD on Nov 1, 2009 8:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
does that mean fla/bama have to lose once...
other than the one loss one of them will have against the other
We decide when you hear the snap count...
by thedrizzle on Nov 1, 2009 8:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No.
Iowa will get in ahead of either fla/bama with one loss, even if its to the other.
Deus nobiscum, quis contra?
by chocochuck02 on Nov 1, 2009 8:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think "Yes"
An undefeated Texas, Florida and Alabama all get in ahead of Iowa. So even if Iowa and Penn State both win out, unless a one loss team wins the Big XII or SEC, Iowa goes to the Rose Bowl and we end up an at-large, probably in the Fiesta.
BSD
by Kevin HD on Nov 1, 2009 8:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thats interesting how we answered the question the same with Yes and No.
Yeah, no chance Iowa gets in ahead of undefeated Texas, fla/bama. But, either Florida or Bama will have to lose to the other. Iowa would get in ahead of the losing team.
Deus nobiscum, quis contra?
by chocochuck02 on Nov 1, 2009 8:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
After I submitted that I realized we were both saying the same thing.
BSD
by Kevin HD on Nov 1, 2009 9:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Defensive Trends
Before the season, I posted some numbers tracking Penn State defensive trends against spread offenses over the past 10 years.
I have the precise numbers saved on another computer, but the general trend was that PSU allowed an average of just over 10 points per first half, with that number plummeting below five points per second half.
Against traditional offenses the points rose in the 2nd half, as one might expect, and the total points per game were higher.
Also — Penn State had a much higher winning percentage against spread teams.
As I wrote then, I’ll again give major caveats: The sample size is small; in an arguably misguided attempt to increase that sample size I’ve lumped spread offenses together, when clearly there are different breeds; some (a lot) of those games have come against exceptionally bad spread teams.
So, no, this isn’t precise science. However:
Against Illinois we actually gave up more points in the second half.
Against Michigan, 10 in the first and 0 in the second.
Then yesterday, 13 in the first and 0 in the second.
So yes, yes, yes more caveats: weather in Ann Arbor, Molk injury, Kafka injury.
Still, I offer this as a trend to watch. The D struggles early against spread offenses, commonly giving up scores on 2 of the first 3 possessions. Then: lights out.
Maybe as the sample size increases we see that this is just a statistical fluke … but maybe not.
by tuscaloosalion on Nov 1, 2009 4:50 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Plus
The Illinois second half points were all in garbage time, too. At least from what I remember.
+1 for the number crunching.
by GreatScawt on Nov 1, 2009 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
PSU vs Michigan Replay
on the Big Ten Network now. They are about to start the 2nd half. I’ll never get tired watching it.
by ageing lion on Nov 1, 2009 8:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I actually thought Northwestern's backup did pretty well
and though I don’t know his stat line, during the game he seemed to be making his throws as well as Kafka was when he was in.
by The JuggerNitt on Nov 1, 2009 9:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
What really p1553d me off
about that dude: He’s from Liberty… from Bethlehem, PA. I went to Freedom. Big rivals. The fact that our high school nemesis was making a few plays really didn’t help, considering they were already winning at the time. Needless to say, I was yelling.
by GreatScawt on Nov 1, 2009 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Over two and a half quarters, Persa was..
14/23 for 115 yards and 14 carries for 42 yards or an average of 1.3 yards per carry, outside of his 25yd run.
Deus nobiscum, quis contra?
by chocochuck02 on Nov 1, 2009 10:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
