Penn State football: Will James Franklin give opportunities to young offensive linemen?
Penn State Nittany Lions football James Franklin discussed the state of his offensive line during a press conference Tuesday.
Story: Will James Franklin give opportunities to young offensive linemen?
- Thread starter DavidEckert
- Start date
I will put this here since the article does talk about the run game. Why in college football is sack yardage taken from the rushing yards, yet in the NFL it is taken away from the passing yards? I know it doesn't really matter where they come off, they are negative yards, just wasn't sure why the difference.
With 9-3 off the table, there is no reason not to get Tengwall and Fashnu snaps. Can they really do worse than not blocking Hutchinson and Ojabo on 3 occasions?
Last edited:
I used to get paid pretty well to examine and evaluate project logic. But many times I just can't figure out what the heck Franklin is talking about. He said he wanted to get some of the younger olinemen such as Fashanu and Tengwall some game experience, but that injuries prevented it. What was injured that he couldn't replace the ineffective Wallace and/or Walker? Franklin's pride?? Walker and/or Wallace's pride when they were beat play after play by the UM DE's?? The only logical injuries that would have prevented Fashanu and/or Tengwall from getting on the field would have been to Fashanu and/or Tengwall. But weren't both of them dressed for every game this season?
Who knows.....
Who knows.....
That I would get since it is pretty much a run, but all of the sacks against UM were passing plays and Clifford was sacked.
Agree it is weird. Shouldn't reduce rushing number. I know in some lower levels they list negative sack yards as "Team" losses ... so it doesn't come off rushing or passing yards, yet still lowers the overall number at the bottom.
While we're discussing how we calculate yardage, my wife's grandfather used to say that YAC yards should not count towards passing yardage
He thought there should be a whole new stat for all that distance a WR picks up AFTER he catches a pass (which there is ... YAC) and that passing yardage should only include the distance the ball was in the air until the catch. Funny, but kind of makes sense. If a 2 yard screen goes for 95 yards, is it really passing yardage?
I would tend to agree along that lines. I guess when they look at it, even though the 2 yard pass went for 95 yards, the pass had to get there to be completed, but I could see changing it to have Passing Yards and Receiving Yards both be the distance the ball was in the air and then for the receivers have the additional category for YAC where Receiving + YAC would be more than Passing.Agree it is weird. Shouldn't reduce rushing number. I know in some lower levels they list negative sack yards as "Team" losses ... so it doesn't come off rushing or passing yards, yet still lowers the overall number at the bottom.
While we're discussing how we calculate yardage, my wife's grandfather used to say that YAC yards should not count towards passing yardage
I disagree. A properly placed ball is the main reason for YAC. Think about a receiver catching a ball in-stride vs having to contort their body to catch a ball thrown behind them thus opening up for an immediate hit by the DB.Agree it is weird. Shouldn't reduce rushing number. I know in some lower levels they list negative sack yards as "Team" losses ... so it doesn't come off rushing or passing yards, yet still lowers the overall number at the bottom.
While we're discussing how we calculate yardage, my wife's grandfather used to say that YAC yards should not count towards passing yardage
Last edited:
Fair point. I'm not advocating for a change, just food for thought. There would be a lot of unhappy quarterbacks if a change like that was ever made!
To my uneducated eye, the OL has recently been perhaps the Lions' biggest problem area. Clifford is a decent QB, the RB's are pretty good, the DL (particularly with Mustipher in there) has been decent, and the linebackers and secondary have been pretty good.
But the OL does not run block well, pass protection could be much better, and the false starts and holding penalties seem to be more frequent. If there are promising young offensive linemen on this roster, they should by all means be given some playing time at this point. The season is already a throwaway by PSU standards.
But the OL does not run block well, pass protection could be much better, and the false starts and holding penalties seem to be more frequent. If there are promising young offensive linemen on this roster, they should by all means be given some playing time at this point. The season is already a throwaway by PSU standards.
In theory the pros don’t run the QB option but colleges do. That’s why the sack yardage is treated differently. Plus this way there’s no margin for error, you don’t need guys in the press box determining run or pass
We use a zone blocking scheme, mostly. When using this sort of scheme the OL has the responsibility of 'stoning' their man and then the RBs have the responsibility of identifying 'the hole'. While it is true that our OL doesn't get a ton of 'push' on their men, our RBs and QB have been lousy at picking the hole that develops as a result of the blocking that is taking place. Too many times the RB has tried to bounce outside or cuts right into a DLman as a hole was developing, etc. Too many times does out QB hand off to a RB who is getting hit while he's getting the ball!
As a former OL, and OL coach, this isn't all on the OL. I would say it's about 60/40 on the OL due to the lack of push. I question our S&C program and Franklin's philosophy on this too. He doesn't like that 340 OL, but they get push!
As a former OL, and OL coach, this isn't all on the OL. I would say it's about 60/40 on the OL due to the lack of push. I question our S&C program and Franklin's philosophy on this too. He doesn't like that 340 OL, but they get push!
Thanks I appreciate the insight. I agree that the RBs compound this problem.
I think the word mostly is the problem. We should either do it or not do, but I think I see a miss mash of this and that and thus nothing happens. You dont have enough time to rep all kinds of different schemes.
They also need to change the blocking schemes because they don't account for some defenders at point of attack. Now I know sometimes we option off some defenders but a tape breakdown I recently watched showing missed assignments by tightends and running backs. Pure zone blocking needs to go away they are not going to be able to push defenders around. Block the angles, pull some people(which I have seen now again) double team the down man and the point of attack and teach your OL to keep head up and peel off a put a hat on the LB scraping off. I know I don't have all the answers but it isn't just one thing stopping us from having a good run game. And it is just not the OL. It is the scheme, TEs and RBs as well but it is easy to blame the OL when there are no running lanes.
We will not, and should not, eliminate all zone blocking schemes. Pro OLs run mostly zone schemes so the fact that your college team uses a similar scheme that pro team use is important in recruiting OL.
I use the word 'mostly' because almost all offenses have special run plays, and special run plays against certain defenses, that employ other techniques like pulls, traps, 'student body left/right' plays, etc. When using these sorts of schemes everyone is working together (supposedly) to get a runner through a set 'hole'; 2/4/6/8 to the right or 1/3/5/7 to the left. These plays tend to work best against defensive fronts that don't do much stunting. Most modern defenses stunt on nearly every play in some way, thus the reason that zone blocking has become so prominent. Instead of having a set 'man' to block, you have a zone to block; whoever enters your zone either in alignment or via stunt is your responsibility to block.
'Zone reads' only work if 1) the QB makes the right read, 2) you have a QB who is just as willing to pull and run as hand off, and 3) have an OL who can create holes to run through. Cliff was pulling earlier in the season much more often, until he got hurt. I'm sure he's being told now to only do so a few times per game, if at all. Last week the only times he ran, other than two really poorly executed QB draw plays, were when the pocket was breaking down and nobody was open in the passing game.
I use the word 'mostly' because almost all offenses have special run plays, and special run plays against certain defenses, that employ other techniques like pulls, traps, 'student body left/right' plays, etc. When using these sorts of schemes everyone is working together (supposedly) to get a runner through a set 'hole'; 2/4/6/8 to the right or 1/3/5/7 to the left. These plays tend to work best against defensive fronts that don't do much stunting. Most modern defenses stunt on nearly every play in some way, thus the reason that zone blocking has become so prominent. Instead of having a set 'man' to block, you have a zone to block; whoever enters your zone either in alignment or via stunt is your responsibility to block.
'Zone reads' only work if 1) the QB makes the right read, 2) you have a QB who is just as willing to pull and run as hand off, and 3) have an OL who can create holes to run through. Cliff was pulling earlier in the season much more often, until he got hurt. I'm sure he's being told now to only do so a few times per game, if at all. Last week the only times he ran, other than two really poorly executed QB draw plays, were when the pocket was breaking down and nobody was open in the passing game.
Don’t know about Fashnu, but I do remember reading earlier in the year that Tengwall was battling injuries. Also don’t know their status now. If Walker, Wallace and Miranda are weakened by the flu, maybe we find out tomorrow.
Good points. It also would help if the RBs would show a little bust instead of looking like they are running in mud Lee looked a little better last week