Since the start of B1G play, I have been venturing over to other schools boards and trying to show opposing fan bases how Penn State's offense works and provide some insight into what I think opposing teams are going to do. I'm not going to pretend like I understand what your defense does/what it's tendencies are - you will have to extrapolate what you expect NW to do based on the clips I provide. Here are the "need to knows" with this Penn State team.
Offensive philosophy: Spread, Run-Pass Option
Returning starters on O: 9
Key players: Barkley (#26), McSorley (#9), Geskiki (#88 - potentially injured), Hamilton (#5), Bates (#52), and McGovern (#66)
Penn State runs an RPO style offense exclusively out of an 11 personnel group (1RB, 1TE, and 3WR) with the main goal being optioning certain conflict players, such as an OLB or Saftey, depending on the play call and or defensive alignment. From a defensive standpoint, it's almost exactly the same as a defending the traditional triple option but with the forward pass wrinkle instead of a pitch read. If the conflict player commits to the run, McSorley (#9) pulls the ball and throws over the top, if the conflict player drops back in coverage McSorley then has the option to keep or give to Barkley (#26). That's a watered down explanation but here's what it looks like in action:
Pitt OLB comes up to defend the run and McSorley pulls it for an easy score. The OLB bites hard on the Barkley give and leaves the TE Gesicki (#88) wide open. The opposite of that would be the OLB stays in coverage the give read tries to take advantage of an extra helmet not in the box.
So, how are teams countering this offense? We have seen a couple different schemes but the two, IMO, that have had the most success are Iowa's bend-but-don't-break defense and teams with good secondaries who load the box and play a lot of zone fire coverage while bringing 4 or 5 man pressures (OSU, UM and USC.) My favorite examples are from the Pitt game this year and the USC game last year - IU did this some last week as well.
Pitt // 3rd and 10 // 11 minutes in the 2nd:
As I said in my Iowa preview, these exotic fronts have been confusing the hell out of this line. And this problem was apparent going back to UM last year. This is a 4 man rush but because we can't identify the rushers Barkley (#26) has to stay in and block, which still doesn't work because we don't correctly ID pressure. Iowa didn't run any of these "ninja" fronts, but they were able to get pressure with only 4 while having McSorley sit in the pocket and wait for the long routes to develop - and that worked as well. What is most likely is you guys will also have some pressure packages so let's take a look at what has worked against PSU in the past:
USC // 2nd and 9 // 7:30 in the 4th
We actually do an okay job picking up this 5 man pressure, but our OT gets beat bad on a 1-on-1 there. I still like this defensive play call as the pressure forces McSorely away from his two favorite targets last season - Geskicki (#88) and Godwin (#12) forcing a check down. This zone blitz has some nice over/under bracket coverage with our H and Y WRs forcing McSorley to check down to the hot route after feeling some pressure. Right now, we don't have the strongest OTs. They looked BAD against Iowa and still were underwhelming against IU last week. So if you can get pressure with 4, great more power to ya, but if you can't play solid zone behind your fire calls and try to contain the middle of the field with Cover 1 or 3 there are still ways to find success. IU last week was selling out to stop the run and bringing fire calls a good bit of the time:
U // 1st and 10 // 8:45 in the 4th
IU had a bunch of calls like this that were very effective. I particularly like that nickel fire call because even if McSorley hands the ball off that player is put in a position to make a play, assuming everyone keeps their responsibilities. Going through the small details - I like that the end gets his hands on Geskicki, I also like how he keeps his contain responsibility. The LB flys to the flat quick for the handoff between the DE and him for Gesicki. I still think this might have been the wrong read? It looks like IU was defending the pass there and not committing to the run so the ball should have gone to Barkley, but even still I think that fire call was perfect for that particular offensive call leading to Penn State starting behind the sticks for 2nd. This has also led to not being able to consistently get solid yards when the field shortens in the red zone.
IU // 2nd and Goal // 12:22 in the 3rd
Single coverage across the board, loaded box, and a clutch run stop. Big success metric I look at is red zone efficiency - it's a good barometer of how strong a team's run game is, yards and PPG can be very misleading. I think PSU finished 2/5 in the red zone against IU (I count 25 yards and in the red zone.) Against Iowa, we really struggled to punch the ball in and it showed with the scoreboard. We gained something like 520+ yards of offense yet only 19 points - mainly because we couldn't run between the tackles. This drive actually ends up with a missed 21 yard FG, on 3rd down Barkley fell in the backfield and caused a tap of a delay in the mesh point - I didn't want to look like I was cherry picking plays. I talked about this last week over at the IU board but running some more traditional red zone looks has caused some trouble with PSU. If you look at the clip above with Pitt, they stay in base alignment and get burned - IU and Iowa, mixed in some more goal-line personnel sets and were able to hold us. Now, interestingly enough, when we ran a QB ISO play earlier in the game against the same goal line look we were easily able to score, that is because we are using Barkley as a lead blocker - we almost never use an H-back (TE in power spreads) as a lead blocker. When we use the RPO in goal line, it's fairly easy to blow our plays up so if we continue to try option plays in the red zone NW needs to play good, disciplined defense (like Iowa, UM, OSU, and USC) to stop that option.
TL;DR NW should play fundamentally sound football, follows their responsibilities, and stop the RPO runs early - by attacking the mesh point - leading to 3rd and longs. When Penn State is in 3rd and long - expect a 5 man pressure to try and keep Barkley in to protect and (maybe?) pattern match with zone coverage behind it - I say maybe because I am not sure if your defense runs that out of base. I also wouldn't be shocked to see a lot of stemming and crowding of the line to try and confuse the OL with where the pressure is coming - even if you only bring 4. When in "& goal" situations looks for an overloaded box or a 46 look suited to stop the run while playing tight man coverage behind it.
Offensive philosophy: Spread, Run-Pass Option
Returning starters on O: 9
Key players: Barkley (#26), McSorley (#9), Geskiki (#88 - potentially injured), Hamilton (#5), Bates (#52), and McGovern (#66)
Penn State runs an RPO style offense exclusively out of an 11 personnel group (1RB, 1TE, and 3WR) with the main goal being optioning certain conflict players, such as an OLB or Saftey, depending on the play call and or defensive alignment. From a defensive standpoint, it's almost exactly the same as a defending the traditional triple option but with the forward pass wrinkle instead of a pitch read. If the conflict player commits to the run, McSorley (#9) pulls the ball and throws over the top, if the conflict player drops back in coverage McSorley then has the option to keep or give to Barkley (#26). That's a watered down explanation but here's what it looks like in action:
Pitt OLB comes up to defend the run and McSorley pulls it for an easy score. The OLB bites hard on the Barkley give and leaves the TE Gesicki (#88) wide open. The opposite of that would be the OLB stays in coverage the give read tries to take advantage of an extra helmet not in the box.
So, how are teams countering this offense? We have seen a couple different schemes but the two, IMO, that have had the most success are Iowa's bend-but-don't-break defense and teams with good secondaries who load the box and play a lot of zone fire coverage while bringing 4 or 5 man pressures (OSU, UM and USC.) My favorite examples are from the Pitt game this year and the USC game last year - IU did this some last week as well.
Pitt // 3rd and 10 // 11 minutes in the 2nd:
As I said in my Iowa preview, these exotic fronts have been confusing the hell out of this line. And this problem was apparent going back to UM last year. This is a 4 man rush but because we can't identify the rushers Barkley (#26) has to stay in and block, which still doesn't work because we don't correctly ID pressure. Iowa didn't run any of these "ninja" fronts, but they were able to get pressure with only 4 while having McSorley sit in the pocket and wait for the long routes to develop - and that worked as well. What is most likely is you guys will also have some pressure packages so let's take a look at what has worked against PSU in the past:
USC // 2nd and 9 // 7:30 in the 4th
We actually do an okay job picking up this 5 man pressure, but our OT gets beat bad on a 1-on-1 there. I still like this defensive play call as the pressure forces McSorely away from his two favorite targets last season - Geskicki (#88) and Godwin (#12) forcing a check down. This zone blitz has some nice over/under bracket coverage with our H and Y WRs forcing McSorley to check down to the hot route after feeling some pressure. Right now, we don't have the strongest OTs. They looked BAD against Iowa and still were underwhelming against IU last week. So if you can get pressure with 4, great more power to ya, but if you can't play solid zone behind your fire calls and try to contain the middle of the field with Cover 1 or 3 there are still ways to find success. IU last week was selling out to stop the run and bringing fire calls a good bit of the time:
U // 1st and 10 // 8:45 in the 4th
IU had a bunch of calls like this that were very effective. I particularly like that nickel fire call because even if McSorley hands the ball off that player is put in a position to make a play, assuming everyone keeps their responsibilities. Going through the small details - I like that the end gets his hands on Geskicki, I also like how he keeps his contain responsibility. The LB flys to the flat quick for the handoff between the DE and him for Gesicki. I still think this might have been the wrong read? It looks like IU was defending the pass there and not committing to the run so the ball should have gone to Barkley, but even still I think that fire call was perfect for that particular offensive call leading to Penn State starting behind the sticks for 2nd. This has also led to not being able to consistently get solid yards when the field shortens in the red zone.
IU // 2nd and Goal // 12:22 in the 3rd
Single coverage across the board, loaded box, and a clutch run stop. Big success metric I look at is red zone efficiency - it's a good barometer of how strong a team's run game is, yards and PPG can be very misleading. I think PSU finished 2/5 in the red zone against IU (I count 25 yards and in the red zone.) Against Iowa, we really struggled to punch the ball in and it showed with the scoreboard. We gained something like 520+ yards of offense yet only 19 points - mainly because we couldn't run between the tackles. This drive actually ends up with a missed 21 yard FG, on 3rd down Barkley fell in the backfield and caused a tap of a delay in the mesh point - I didn't want to look like I was cherry picking plays. I talked about this last week over at the IU board but running some more traditional red zone looks has caused some trouble with PSU. If you look at the clip above with Pitt, they stay in base alignment and get burned - IU and Iowa, mixed in some more goal-line personnel sets and were able to hold us. Now, interestingly enough, when we ran a QB ISO play earlier in the game against the same goal line look we were easily able to score, that is because we are using Barkley as a lead blocker - we almost never use an H-back (TE in power spreads) as a lead blocker. When we use the RPO in goal line, it's fairly easy to blow our plays up so if we continue to try option plays in the red zone NW needs to play good, disciplined defense (like Iowa, UM, OSU, and USC) to stop that option.
TL;DR NW should play fundamentally sound football, follows their responsibilities, and stop the RPO runs early - by attacking the mesh point - leading to 3rd and longs. When Penn State is in 3rd and long - expect a 5 man pressure to try and keep Barkley in to protect and (maybe?) pattern match with zone coverage behind it - I say maybe because I am not sure if your defense runs that out of base. I also wouldn't be shocked to see a lot of stemming and crowding of the line to try and confuse the OL with where the pressure is coming - even if you only bring 4. When in "& goal" situations looks for an overloaded box or a 46 look suited to stop the run while playing tight man coverage behind it.