Inside, Outside: Playing Thin and Bullies In High Places

Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman explains to the
rest of us how we just don't get it, man. (AP Photo)
Somehow, "72 64 days until football" seems like a very short time, but it's still ten full weeks until Penn State takes the field against Akron. Either way, football will be dominating every aspect of our lives before we know it, so it's time for your trusty BSD writers to pick at some issues that will not only impact Penn State, but the college football world at large. It's a little something we'll call Inside, Outside.
Inside: Despite the title of 'Linebacker U", Penn State has been just as successful at performing on the defensive line. However, with Evans and Project Mayhem now NFLin', plus additional injuries, is the defensive line a weakness in 2009? And how thin is Penn State at the position, anyway?
RUTS: Pretty damned thin, L.J. Sr.'s unbelievable coaching success notwithstanding. We're not "Defensive Line U" quite yet, but it's hard to argue with the results of the past 5-10 years. For 2009, however, things may be difficult. Jack Crawford is apparently on his way to being the next great Penn State defensive end, but he played very sparingly in 2008 (and didn't always look so great, although he was frequently lined up at DT). His backup appears to be Pete Massaro, who also has next to no experience or not. On the other side, we have Kevion Latham and Eric Lattimore. By the way, if you are asked which of these four players had the only QB sack in 2008, the correct answer is Lattimore. Basically, these four players have done absolutely nothing so far at Penn State. Harsh, but true. Lattimore had seven tackles in '08. Crawford, four. This...this is not good, which is why we're really going to have to count on the returning Jerome Hayes, he of the multiple ACL surgeries. If he can provide some speed from the edge, Penn State might be fine. Otherwise, our only hope is that our defensive tackles are so dominant that offensive lines will have to pinch down to protect against Odrick, Koroma, et. al. and leave guys like Crawford and Lattimore to fight against only the offensive tackle.
Kevin: The question probably goes too far, but with the success of guys like Alford and Hali, along with the high draft status of guys like Maybin, it's no wonder we were all sweating bullets back in January.
History aside, my preliminary set of worries probably starts with the dline, specifically the ends. The inside appears to be on track, with Odrick and Ogbu back in front of Still and Koroma, but the outside looks unfamiliar at best.
I am most concerned because I don't want our All-World linebacking corp having to deal with a bad line. If the holes don't get filled it's not going to let these guys attack the ball the way they know best, and from there things could get ugly.
Outside: Despite being the new kid on the block, Penn State (depending on your opinion) either had the privilege or was forced to bear the burden of playing The Granddaddy this past January. With those thoughts in mind, how seriously do you take this threat from Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman: "What I think most people don’t understand is that the alternative to the current system is not a playoff. The alternative to the BCS is going back to our traditional relationship with our bowl partners."
Kevin: My initial reaction is "yeah, screw it", I don't have anything vested in the new system and I sure as hell hate the politics that go down at the end of the season. You could argue that the voters actually have much more control than ever, especially the coaches who now want to pull the veil back over their ballots. And now that teams like Auburn of old and more recently Texas have felt the burn, who really loves this new system, anyway?
The only problem is that I'm not that crazy about the Rose Bowl under current conditions. USC is (repeatedly) the only team in the nation with negative odds to win their conference, and it's taking the fun out of it. The players complain about having to play in the Rose Bowl every year, well I'm complaining about having to watch them play in the Bose Bowl every year because they forgot to show up against Stanford.
So to answer the question: the threat is indeed hallow, and frankly I'm not sure there is much of a difference between the two systems.
RUTS: Hell, I welcome it. At least we kind of knew what we were getting in that system and didn't have to put up with all of this non-stop lobbying at the end of the season by coaches, media, and conference commissioners. If the SEC champion is automatically sent to the Sugar Bowl, great. Put the ACC in the Orange Bowl, the Big 12 in the Fiesta Bowl, and the Big Ten and Pac Ten in the Rose Bowl (I'd prefer Tempe, but it'll never happen). Oh, and the Big East can have the Meineke Car Care Bowl. Okay, the Gator Bowl, but that's as far as I'm going. And when the bowls all shake out, maybe then we could have a plus-one game for the national championship. I don't know how how serious Harvey Perlman was when he suggested it, but what the hell, it could possibly warrant more than 45 seconds of consideration.
0 recs |
21 comments
|
Comments
Mike
could not be reached for comment, and, somehow, might actually be working this afternoon.
Based on the traffic today I’d guess he is the only one.
Order your copy of "We Are Penn State" The offseason is long. So is this magazine.
by Kevin HD on Jul 2, 2009 4:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Don't bother me
I’m on vacation.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on Jul 3, 2009 6:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And you were up and posted this by 6:51 AM?
by Screen Name 20 on Jul 7, 2009 8:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and dont' forget, he's from the central time zone (though I think vacationing out east)
so to him it is more like 5:51 AM
by The JuggerNitt on Jul 7, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only way the old system would work
is if there was then a plus one. Otherwise, we get issues with split titles and us getting boned in 94, neither of which are real fun. The only benefit of the BCS is 1 v 2 every year (apologies to Utah and Boise St) as opposed to 1 v 6 and 2 v 8 and 3 v4, etc.
I would absolutely love to see the abolition of bowl tie ins. I hate seeing the same games being played every year. I know it won’t happen, but It would allow for the best teams to go to the best bowls, so if Boise goes 11-1 and just misses the BCS they could play in say the capital one instead of the humanitarian. Maybe to spice it up, let USC play in the Sugar bowl, I am sure they get tired of Pasadena.
I would also love to see a couple cold weather bowl games. Not for the sake of letting the big ten win a few, but because I love seeing football being played in flurries, palm trees are only enticing to me for so long. Who wouldn’t love to see how Florida and OU would do in Philadelphia or New York or Boston in January? I would.
Those are my rants that are vaguely about what you discussed.
Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.
"Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth."
by Roland86 on Jul 2, 2009 4:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with the Cold Bowls
however, where’s the appeal? You’re not going to attract a ton of people with Philly January weather, unfortunately. But I’m totally with you on seeing how those pansy hot state teams would fare when it’s 32 and they’re freaking out because they’re seeing snow for the first time.
by dawsonPSU10 on Jul 2, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
USC out of Pasadena
It’d also be nice for us to play in the Rose Bowl against a team that’s not in their home stadium. Seriously, I like the Big 10-PAC-10 matchup but when they’ve got a built in advantage it’s not quite as fun.
Unless we win, of course. Then it’s friggin’ hilarious.
by Bleed Blue 'n White on Jul 2, 2009 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Old bowl system + plus one would be my favorite “solution” to the BCS. Or even a modified BCS setup + plus one. And I think that this is at least conceivable in the near future, unlike a playoff.
by Laaaaazzz on Jul 2, 2009 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We already have a playoff
It just happens to be the worst one ever conceived. A two-team playoff works fine when you have 154 games (pre-division play MLB) to sort out who the best teams are. Not so much when you have 120 teams playing 12 games apiece in mostly segregated fashion.
by SpartanDan on Jul 3, 2009 2:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't blame the playoff, then
Blame the league and economic structure, then, not the playoff. College football isn’t organized for a sport. It’s organized for economics. If you want it to be a sport, you have to change more than just the playoff.
by Bleed Blue 'n White on Jul 3, 2009 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cotton Bowl
They could put a wrench in the works. Essentially all lower bowl ties expire at the end of 2010, my bet is that they wrest the Big XII from the BCS mix and get everyone else to fall in line behind them.
by Cairo on Jul 2, 2009 4:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Bad news
His backup appears to be Pete Massaro, who also has next to no experience.
You mean the same Pete Massaro who tore his ACL in the BW game and is out for the whole 2009 season?
by dawsonPSU10 on Jul 2, 2009 6:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And by "experience" I meant "knee"
Christ, I knew that.
That’s the last fucking time I rely on a BWI depth chart.
--
Order your copy of "We Are Penn State", like, now. One team, 128 pages.
by Run Up The Score on Jul 2, 2009 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Although, bless SB Nation
This shows up in the right-hand column:
Massaro Tears ACL
by Kevin HD 2 months ago
17 comments | 0 recs
--
Order your copy of "We Are Penn State", like, now. One team, 128 pages.
by Run Up The Score on Jul 2, 2009 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's OK
I’m sure your mind was kind of in panic mode looking at our DL situation so it blocked out what you didn’t want to see.
by dawsonPSU10 on Jul 2, 2009 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
my take
our great LB’s will make up for a thin DE, because we have a couple of ’tweeners at LB/DE who can give us a lot of 3-4 looks. If we adopt the 3-4 we will be incredibly good up front, b/c we will play to our strengths.
More interesting: given LJ’s dominance at coaching the line and producing NFL talent, WHERE ARE THE DE RECRUITS?! You would think with Maybin going so early we’d have snagged a top 5 DE in this class or last…. I find it interesting we aren’t recruiting DE’s as hard as would be expected, unless LJ’s building a 3-4 defense. We’ve got Hailes and a good shot a Floyd, plus Jones, and those are big DT’s. The kind you would need for a 3-4…
"We hugged as grown men do. It was a great moment. Then, it was business as usual." -- LJ Sr.
by millzners on Jul 2, 2009 9:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Odrick played a bit of DE in the Blue White game
If you think about it, this move would help both Odrick and the team. First, he certainly knows the position, since he played it for two years. Second, it gives the team a pretty solid rotation at both DE and DT (Odrick-Hayes-Crawford; Koroma-Ogbu-Stills). Third, I am guessing that in the NFL he would project as a 3-4 DE anyway.
by cpm126 on Jul 4, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just like that our D-Line is COOL
C rawford
O drick
O gbu
L atham/Lattimore
by The JuggerNitt on Jul 3, 2009 11:50 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
+0.69
DO YOU HAVE PRIDE, DANNY?
by ReadingRambler on Jul 3, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll give you the other +0.31
"...You know, Reemer, someday I'm gonna own a big sports bar."
by IcersGuy on Jul 4, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 




















