Official PSU - FIU game thread
- Thread starter Tom McAndrew
- Start date
You were probably one of the jagoffs complaining that Allar should have been playing over Clifford also.
Oregon dropped 69 points on OkSt today.
They were up 41-3 at halftime.
They racked up over 630 yards of total offense.
I don't know how anyone can look at the outcomes of PSU/FIU and Oregon/OkSt today and think, "It's all good. We got this."
I'm sure some people are going to run to the argument of, "So what? The Cowboys suck this year!" Possibly true. But... are they worse than Florida International? Eeeeeeh... not likely.
We are... in DEEP **** at this point in time.
They were up 41-3 at halftime.
They racked up over 630 yards of total offense.
I don't know how anyone can look at the outcomes of PSU/FIU and Oregon/OkSt today and think, "It's all good. We got this."
I'm sure some people are going to run to the argument of, "So what? The Cowboys suck this year!" Possibly true. But... are they worse than Florida International? Eeeeeeh... not likely.
We are... in DEEP **** at this point in time.
Games do not carry over, so it doesn’t matter. Plus, FIU may very well be better than Ok State….they beat Bethune Cookman by almost the same score as Miami did…if we’re going to use the transitive property for one game, we have to use it for all, right?
Previously ranked = unranked next week.
Ps. You only count top 5 wins. When Franklin beat Illinois, Utah, Boise or smu it didn't count.
Well, I just locked myself in my film room [basement tv] and rewatched the second half. Our receivers were never separated (and this vs 1aa d backs]
the 34-0 crew is missing the nuance (as expected)
go scout the OSU and O curb stompings to understand what I’m talking about.
On a brighter note, my birds are 1-0 and Super Bowl champions!
GO STATE BEAT NOVA
”we are not okay with mediocre” PSU ad
the 34-0 crew is missing the nuance (as expected)
go scout the OSU and O curb stompings to understand what I’m talking about.
On a brighter note, my birds are 1-0 and Super Bowl champions!
GO STATE BEAT NOVA
”we are not okay with mediocre” PSU ad
The difference isn't "negative fans" and "positive fans". It's people who only understand the numbers on the scoreboard and people who are capable of analyzing the metagame.
Maybe.
I think that the problem is this narrative of, "we're keeping all of the GOOD merch in the back of the store" emerges every year when people say, "I see things that are cause for concern."
And it never quite materializes. It never seems to be the case that a completely different team takes the field against the tough opponents. Instead we go from, "I think X, Y, and Z might be problems," to "we lost, yet again, to another tough opponent."
I don't see anyone saying things like, "We suck," and "F this team." I see people pointing out specific issues: the O-line play does not appear to be as stalwart as we expected it to be this year. Drew's mechanics are still all over the place. There doesn't appear to be a ton of separation on the receiving routes. The defense seems like they're giving up a bit too much given the level of competition we've faced so far (FIU's top two rushers averaged 5 yards per carry yesterday).
I do think it is naive to look at these early games and say, "Well, they didn't play well, but a completely different team is going to take the field on September 27."
Mind you, I would love to see it. Maybe we will. But every time we go down in flames against a tough opponent, there seems to be resentment toward the people that were pointing out the problems, instead of just admitting they were right.
I think that Coach Franklin isn’t showing everything in these early games and will open up the offense and defense in the big games. Isn’t that what Coach Paterno used to do?
Oregon gave Ok State the treatment because the Ok State coach said it’s easy to be good when you can pay your players. The truth hurts. Running up the score was cheap, but Ok State had it coming because of the comment. In the end, what did Oregon gain from it? They win the game either way. But the Oregon coach’s feelings were hurt so he did it. What if he caused an unnecessary injury from his ego?
I genuinely do not know what I'm supposed to take from this.
Isn't everyone getting paid now?
Does the motivation behind Oregon's massacre of OkSt matter? I think was matters is that they were able to go into that game and absolutely bully them like they were a CUSA team.
I cannot imagine Penn State even being capable of dropping a bomb on the Cowboys like that. Can you?
Yes.
I don’t understand what you’re saying. Not everyone can pay the same. Grundy took a shot at the Oregon coach. The Oregon coach responded.
Oregon is getting a rep of running it up when they can. Does it help them in subsequent games? No. OSU pounded them in the playoffs. We had our chances against them. We didn’t regress.
Last edited:
Right. This is what gets lost in the, "They're not really trying!" apologist narrative.
Penn State went 3-for-12 on 3rd down yesterday. Isn't it interesting how easily "not trying" blends into "undisciplined"?
In what scenario does a head coach look at that and go, "Eh, who cares?" Shouldn't the goal be to dominate the competition early, so that the game is over by halftime and the 2nd and 3rd stringers can get in there and get some experience?
Also, if people watched that CBS special on the PSU O-line, they admitted that's their goal when they play soft opponents: "how quickly can we end this game and be done for the day?" So, the players very much have incentive to not phone it in.
They’re not 1-AA and continuing to say it makes you look stupid. Why would anyone take your “scouting” seriously when you don’t know the difference between an FCS and an FBS school?
yes, but he was a genius when he did it- CJF is an idiot if he does the same thing
Really well said. I guess it was probably 3 or 4 years ago when we couldn't run the ball on Villanova at home and I had major concerns. I read countless posts about how im a heretic and the offense was just being vanilla. We had a Hell of a time running the ball at all, against anyone, later in the year. The score was fine yesterday, but the team did not look crisp offensively at all and that should be a reason for concern.
I see what you mean about injury. I’m super happy 15 didn’t have to play in the 4rth quarter yesterday.
I understand the appeal of running to the, "Yeah, but...!" apologist arguments. Denial is common, and people want to believe there's a genie in every bottle.
Sports is incredibly emotional (in case the posts on this board haven't made that sufficiently clear). So, I get it.
But I think there are certain fans/posters that try to separate themselves from their emotions and biases and take a hard, sober look at what is happening on the field, and then comment on it. And the people that don't do that (either because they're incapable, or simply not inclined to do so) hastily dismiss it as "being negative" when it's actually "being analytical".
That won't fix the problem. The issue is they are not very good at what they do show.
Maybe you can do it better! Do you have eligibility or did you use it all up?
The most insightful portion of your post is the revelation that you apparently pronounce the number 4 as "fo", so that "4rth" is necessary.
I don't think anyone is intending to argue that we're bad. It's more that there's considerable distance between what we expected to see during these first two games and what we actually saw.
It is troubling how long the starters had to play yesterday, for example. It's problematic that the pass rush is getting through our O-line (at least on one instance without blitz pressure).
Drew completing 56% of his passes against an afternoon kindergarten program isn't the kind of stuff that instills confidence. Drew did say in the post-game that he wasn't happy with his performance, but that he feels he can easily fix the things he did wrong, so that's good.
So, it's not that we're "secretly very bad" but more like, "we're not playing like we're the #2 team in the country right now". I don't think anyone is drawing conclusions. Just some early fingernail biting.
False dilemma. The reality is that this is a very veteran experienced squad, which is unique in college football ... and we have a very innovative (sometimes to our detriment, but I digress) offensive coordinator.
So, it's very possible that they're keeping things mostly vanilla during a beginning easy stretch in the schedule, while they're also playing around with lineups and getting newer kids some PT.
Last year, those tragic shortcomings took us all the way to one play of being in the Natty. The horra. The consistently criticizing and crying crew were certainly correct to crow for Franklin's head early in the season, while predicting utter doom for the team. You guys nailed it.
Another mischaracterization. The "sucking" is relative. For many of the critics, "sucking" doesn't involved being a UMass-level squad, it involves not being undefeated and winning the Natty. So, if we aren't nearly flawless, and we don't win the Natty, "we suck." 10-2 at the end of the year, and they're crowing for the HC to be replaced, saying Allar isn't the guy, etc.
Another false dilemma. No one is expecting a completely different team to show up. If you have to consistently argue in unreasonable exaggerations and mischaracterizations of the opposition's arguments, you don't have a worthy argument yourself.
These are not "false dilemmas". The "experienced veterans" argument doesn't carry water. They're either performing or they're not, and people are justifiably analyzing what they have seen so far (which is all anyone can do).
"Keeping things mostly vanilla"
That was specifically the point I was addressing. It's a common narrative that gets trotted out every year, but I don't see evidence of this ever being the case. Was the play calling appreciably different against Oregon/Ohio State/Notre Dame last year than it was against other teams?
As you noted, they can sometimes be "too cute" (gimmicky) and I don't think that's what people are looking for to distinguish "vanilla" from "ok, here's the REAL playbook".
"Last year... one play from the natty."
We played 3 tough opponents in 2024, and our record in those games was 0-3. I think that's what people are looking at. We do a good job beating the teams we're expected to beat. But when we go up against a good opponent, we haven't been able to put those games away.
"The consistently criticizing and crying crew..."
No one is doing that. There are people that are analyzing the on-field product, and saying things like, "here is where we need to improve, this is a concern going forward..." and other people that have rose-colored glasses welded to their face.
"Sucking is relative"
I don't think I've ever seen anyone make the argument that anything short of an undefeated season and a natty = "we suck". This is the most common strawman argument used by apologists. Beating 10 cupcakes, and then losing all of our tough games is a legitimate reason to raise an eyebrow. I think that people want us to be competitive with Ohio State and Oregon and Michigan some of the time. No one expects to win every game. What we want is to be "in it" most years, and to sometimes prevail.
"Another false dilemma"
I didn't establish a dilemma of any kind. And I'm not mischaracterizing your argument whatsoever. Within your response, you argued that the team is deliberately playing down to its level of competition. That means you expect a different product to be on display against tougher opponents. And I didn't even say that won't be the case. I specifically said, "maybe that will happen."
But I also pointed out that people make this argument every year. And then:
Ohio State: L
Oregon: L
Notre Dame: L
The difference -- as I see it -- is people who are content with beating up on Purdue and Delaware and UMASS and FIU and Temple and Coastal Carolina and West Virginia... and people who want to see us pull out wins against tougher competition with greater consistency.
That's not being a "hater". That's not "crying". That's being a fan and wanting to see your team have success.
We're 2-0 with no injuries and weren't tested either week (average score of 40-5.5). I would have signed up for this before the season started.
Of course it's a false dilemma. And of course the "experienced veterans" argument carries water (along with the other elements I stated).
Yes, the playcalling is much different so far this season than it was later in the season last year.
With all due respect, blow it out your butt hole. This is a common, sad, tired refrain adopted by the constant criers ... "we only beat the teams we're expected to beat" ... and then add in that we don't beat good opponents. LOL. Whoever we beat, they immediately become "not good." We beat good opponents. If we were ranked 120th, beating only the teams we're expected to beat would be a damning thing. Because we wouldn't be expected to beat many teams. But you guys are caught in the circular loop of having to admit we're really, really freaking good, to the point where the only teams weren't not expected to beat, are stud teams. And then try to say we're not that good, because we don't beat those teams. Yawn. We know ... you deserve better.
Yeah, you are. There's a whole crew of whining babies who are looking to get rid of Franklin and Co. They came out like maggots on a carcass during the USC game last year. As we were trailing, they were out here calling for Franklin's head. They knew it all along. He's terrible. Can't win big games. We'll never be any better. Blah, blah, blah, blah. Then we ended up winning and they ran like cowards. Then they'd wait until we struggled a bit, and they'd pop back up and chirp, before running back into their caves, waiting for the next time to point and cry that they deserve better. They're the same folks out here now, looking for anything and everything to criticize. They love this stuff.
Oh, so you don't read the board. Or this thread. Got it.
Everyone is a cupcake, when we beat them. We know. This is one of the many reasons no one takes you guys seriously.
It's not going to be a completely different team. That's both you mischaracterizing my argument and establishing a false dilemma. Very straightforward.
Yeah, that was terrible. We sucked. Fire Franklin. He only got us to within one play of the Natty. We're going to need to be a completely different team from here on out to get back to the playoffs, based on our convincing early season wins.
If we pull out wins against tougher competition with greater consistency, we're going to be undefeated, or nearly undefeated, national champions fairly often. See my prior commentary. Would you be happy if we beat OSU half the time and lost an equal amount of those games to lesser opponents? No? Then you want undefeated Nattys (or very near that), or you won't be happy.
I agree with the sentiment in this last sentence.
In regards to Michigan, we were very competitive against them for a while until they went on that run of three seasons when they found an identity on offense and found a way to beat a lot of good teams. Penn State should, in theory, be more competitive with UM than they are with Oregon or OSU because PSU recruits at roughly the same tier as Michigan—if you look at the recruiting ranking data over the years.
I have said it before on these boards, but the popular media and social media narrative is that Franklin cannot win the “big game.” That is not the correct interpretation or framing, in my opinion. Putting it more accurately, teams under Franklin struggle mightily against opponents who are of the same talent level or better. I don’t have the requisite knowledge to be able to fully dissect why, but it is not one simple reason that a lot of fans like to latch on to (it is surely a multifaceted problem over time).
What draws the ire of fans is that it is reasonable to expect a team to sometimes beat those teams that are similar in talent level and even at times come up with an upset against the team that is more talented. Why? Because fans see it happen elsewhere. Franklin’s teams are remarkably consistent at beating the teams that they have more established talent than (that’s good) and losing to teams with equal or better talent (not so good). It’s reasonable to expect to lose to teams that out-recruit PSU more times and not, but is not unreasonable to anticipate an upset sprinkled in here and there over the course of a decade when PSU has good talent on hand, team cohesion, and an established identity on both sides of the ball. Michigan did that very thing to OSU again and again.