found this comment interesting on BTN. Revsine started by saying PSU fell from #4 to oblivion. One of the guys pointed out that PSU is a different team with 100% SC. not everyone wanted to run with the comment as it would take away from the narrative of a couple teams that PSU would have beaten with 100% SC = UMichigan and Iowa.
BTN discussion of PSU - says PSU is completely different team with Clifford at 100%
- Thread starter blion72
- Start date
which is yet another reason why competent o line play is important. hell, our guys wouldnt even get in someones face after they hit clifford late. just no fire in anyone on that line.
Sean Clifford rushing through Q1 Iowa (5 and 1/4 games) - 175 yards
Sean Clifford rushing after Iowa (6 games) - negative 56 yards.
BTN is 100% correct.
Sean Clifford rushing after Iowa (6 games) - negative 56 yards.
BTN is 100% correct.
I'll add that a competent OL, at least theoretically, makes a better run game. Yes I know the RBs aren't exactly the second coming of Barkley. But a decent run game at least wins the Iowa game and probably 1 or 2 others this year.
Franklin and staff must get the OL issues fixed. Otherwise this team goes nowhere. It doesn't matter if Allar is everything great about Collins and Trace rolled into one. If he's running for his life every play he won't be effective, especially for 4 years.
If you need to run your QB to be successful, your offense has big problems.
It depends on how much you rely on the QB run for that success. If your QB is close to your leading rusher, you got huge problems. But if the QB run is used as a weapon within the normal running and passing game I would point more towards the offense having a balanced attack.
That’s just wrong. If your offense is built around the threat and ability of your QB to run, a QB that does not present that threat most certainly is a huge impact. Doesn’t even mean he has to run. Just has to be a threat.
that is not to say the run game didn’t have issues when Clifford was healthy. It certainly did. But Clifford was a key key part of the running game. And without him presenting even a threat of running, the problems were just insurmountable.
I don't agree with this but I think you are on to something:
If you need to run your QB to be successful and don't have 2-3 guys available, your offense has big problems.
Totally agree. Even the threat of running changes the way you play defense…especially blitz packages. If a DC knows your QB has limited mobility, he can present an entirely new wrinkle to his scheme.
I think a lot of this comes back to depth, losing a QB shouldn't be a death knell to your effort. It should impact, it should slow down, but it shouldn't kill you dead.
Having a bad OL is like having a bad back. Causes problems for all of the other units.
If you look bigger picture they lost 3 QBs this calendar year. Roberson was a 4th stringer when the year started. Obviously he and CV should have been better prepared, but CV had the issues with the arrest, and Roberson was 4th string coming out of last season for a reason.
Oh I agree.
My issue is that, in 2021, there's no reason to have that massive drop off unless you just have this once in a generation talent and you have tailored an offense around him. Think Mike Vick in 99-00, Peyton in 97 (ironically, his backup is the one who wound up winning the title).
But I just don't see SC as being that guy, and if you know you can't count on TR, and CV has those issues, and you know you are losing Levis, the portal works both ways. If you go in to these games/situations with no backup plan (or THAT was your backup plan), you can't possibly be taken seriously. I am not asking for the 3rd stringer to win a national title, a la Cardale. I am just asking for competence, maybe score at half the rate of the starter (which still puts them into the 30s points-wise at Iowa). But that whole thing just shut down, I'm still in disbelief.
Generally the portal works one way when it comes to QBs. There are exceptions but its predominantly backups and former starters who are now backups transferring to situations where they won't be backups. There aren't many examples of quality QBs transferring to backup an entrenched starter who beat out the guy that was considered one of the top QBs to enter the portal. Certainly no one at Levis' level was coming in to replace him. Hindsight clearly says all of the backup eggs (reps) should have gone into the CV basket but thats hindsight for you.
I expect a bunch of moves in the portal this offseason (including QB if Clifford isn't back) so we will see what the roster (and coaching staff) ends up looking like. MSU and UM overhauled in one season. We'll see how Day handles failure and UM hasn't shown consistency year to year. Save the doom and gloom for mid october when we've lost to Auburn, OSU and UM
.
Last edited:
Collins had a wicked play action fake that could freeze defenders. That is nonexistent in Franklin's offense. Little things and attention to detail make a big difference.
I think the issue is relying on the QB to run consistently equals a lot more hits and potential for injury, plus additional fatigue that affects passes. A mobile qb who can elude the rush, extend plays, or scramble for the first is a true weapon. Routinely relying on them as a rusher causes the other problems.
Honestly I feel like this is how they used Clifford. Most of his rushing yards were extending plays and keeping defenses honest vs designed runs and he didn't take a lot of big hits. His injury even came on a drop back (take a bow OL). Running Clifford isn't what got us into this mess although he absolutely wasn't a threat to take off after Iowa minus a couple of plays at the shoe.
This is why he'll be back next year. That NIL money from McLanahans > not making an NFL practice squad money.
Maybe for us, but that shouldn't have been hindsight for the coaches, Franklin in particular. He loves to talk about the Sunday game he runs with the backups to give them "game" experience. Would be fun to watch some film from this past seasons "Sunday" games.
I take it one step further back: Why was there an impression that someone coming here would be a backup?Generally the portal works one way when it comes to QBs. There are exceptions but its predominantly backups and former starters who are now backups transferring to situations where they won't be backups. There aren't many examples of quality QBs transferring to backup an entrenched starter who beat out the guy that was considered one of the top QBs to enter the portal. Certainly no one at Levis' level was coming in to replace him. Hindsight clearly says all of the backup eggs (reps) should have gone into the CV basket but thats hindsight for you.
I expect a bunch of moves in the portal this offseason (including QB if Clifford isn't back) so we will see what the roster (and coaching staff) ends up looking like. MSU and UM overhauled in one season. We'll see how Day handles failure and UM hasn't shown consistency year to year. Save the doom and gloom for mid october when we've lost to Auburn, OSU and UM
What did SC do his first two seasons to be anointed an inalienable starter?
The only thing more absurd than a program (wanting to be taken seriously) playing Clifford for 3 years would be playing him 4 years. He's probably the median D1 QB. Ok, but you'll get what you get and have to be happy with never having the better QB in any meaningful game.
Bingo.
I don't think it is hindsight at all. The staff couldn't have been surprised by the result from Iowa when SC went down.
That is the issue. First off, Clifford is not mike vick or cam newton. He simply is not very big or particularly elusive. You KNEW, everyone knew going into the year the only thing that couldn't happen was Sean getting hurt. This of course coming after a season in which he was our LEADING rusher(which is pure malpractice). I know he got hit on a pass play, but can someone, anyone explain to me why we were still running QB draws into the teeth of the defense against Michigan and Michigan state with a very clearly injured Sean? Seans career at Penn state ended just like Hacks and Traces....injured, worse for the experience, and demoralized from a series of losses and a loss in their last game. All of them behind porous offensive lines, constantly taking hits, and then being asked to scramble and run designed running plays. Its crazy.
Yeah, I don't disagree with much of your post.
Don't mind the running QB, and having it as a staple of the offense. But I do mind having it as a staple if you have no other QBs. Because once he's done, your done.
Right. And I like the QB run as much as the next guy, but it seems like a lot of the truly good offenses use it as an extension of their offense, when it is in rhythm. They are running tempo, gash the defense for 8 yards, then hit a crossing route....run it again where the QB gives to the back for 5 yards, quick tempo, the QB keeps and has the corner, can protect himself after a nice gainer and step out of bounce. It is a really featured play for us and we seem to use it more and more(predictably) as the season goes on. No tempo, it looks unnatural, nobody is fooled, we slam our QB in there for a punishing 2 yard gain. It just doesn't look right, it confuses one team early in the year and then we keep going to that well and by the end of the season, it is just a throw away play in which our QB gets smacked.
Because Will Levis had already left for that reason. Having the backup (who was regarded as one of the top QBs in the portal) transfer out early in the offseason because they aren't going to beat out Clifford doesn't really put a great message out there for others to come take a crack at it when there are other opportunities with empty QB1 slots.
I think we’re speaking past each other here, probably my fault.
My question is more basic than “why would a QB come here when there are open spots elsewhere?”
My question is “why wasn’t PSU just as open a spot/competition as anywhere else?”
In other words, why were 19 and 20 good enough for a coach looking to get to Elite, who openly talked about in an ESPN article a few years ago that you have to hit the jackpot and have a QB to win big. Why settle for the epitome of average, then continue to welcome it back without turning over every leaf to upgrade? Maybe he did? But I don’t think so, as you said, Levis leaving said it all.
Yeah can’t disagree with any of this. I think a lot of the issue is that SC is simply not that guy who’s a runner. The broadcasts like to talk about how he doesn’t look athletic “but he can run”, but that’s not really the guy you want running the ball in a QB run heavy system imo. Funny thing is I think the most in rhythm drive, with the QB doing what he’s supposed to do, that part looking the part, and the tempo moving, was the lone TR drive that led to a FG at Iowa. Tempo tempo tempo. TR dining designed and not. But they just couldn’t get the initial first down in too many of his other drives to get rolling.
No I know what you're saying. My response to your question is: Who says it wasn't (or wouldn't have been) just as open as anywhere else? You still need someone willing to step up to the plate and take that challenge, which is a hell of an ask when you consider the publicly available information from that point in time.
Even in a world where it was an open competition (and no reason to believe it wouldn't have been) the fact of the matter was that Levis had presumably already either lost to Sean or he'd come to the realization he couldn't beat out Sean (and I mean from a skill stand point not a fair shot stand point). Once Will left that sent out a couple of possible messages: 1) Clifford is the entrenched starter and Will never got a fair shot or 2) Clifford is a better QB than Will and Will left because he knew he wouldn't beat him out.
If you're a recruit who is transferring to be a starter and you believe 1. then you aren't coming because you don't think you'll get a fair shot.
If you're a recruit who is transferring to be a starter and you believe 2. then you need to ask yourself if you're a better QB than Clifford if Levis isn't. There weren't any Justin Fields level transfers in the portal last season (at least that I can think of) so I'm not sure who is answering that question definitively yes versus going somewhere else that may require them to answer that question.
If you're a recruit who isn't transferring to be a starter and you're content as a backup, you probably aren't winning Iowa for us.
I think the problem with trying to find a QB in the portal is that there is usually only on QB used exclusively per game unlike a rotation at just about every other position except for P/K. Any QB worth bringing in did not want to sit or felt they could not beat out Clifford.
Tell me which QB transferred, and won a starting job and played good enough that you believe he unseats SC.
Portal wasn't very good QB wise for '21. Our guy that left had the most success and we know that our win total is higher if he stays.
We should have sought depth at the position. Definitely a mistake not to. 3 QBs out in 2 seasons. If you bring in 1 a year recruiting, you should definitely bring in 1 to offset losing 2 in a single off season.
I think the bigger issue for CV is that he had no sr. season.
Clifford did not need to be that guy who's a runner, he just needed to be a threat to run to give the opposing D something to think about. After the injury the threat was 99.9% gone and they could sell out on the RB getting the ball.
Last edited:
Get unlimited access today.