Plays of Tomorrow? Offensive Tendencies to Break vs. Oregon

For all the creativity Penn State OC Andy Kotelnicki has shown in 2024, a few base concepts out of distinguishable formations have gotten a tad predictable.

Sponsor: FTB’s Donors Club – the most direct way to support our efforts – is back for another year! (sad Sarah McLachlan music plays) For $9.99 you can feed a starving blogger…and get a cool FTB bottle koozie in return! JOIN HERE.

When playing a Dan Lanning coached defense — or better yet a direct-branch defese from the Saban Tree (Saban—Smart—Lanning), you’re going to have your hands full.

Yes, Lanning and his mentors recruit well, coach toughness and physicality, and have an elite scheme. But, in my opinion, the overwhelming differentiating factor of this defensive coaching tree is the focus on recognizing and exploiting opposing offenses tendencies. In other words, they find a common denominator somewhere, and before the day is over some poor graduate assistant is tasked with putting together an entire folder full of graphics, diagrams, and film cut ups related to this tendency.

For example, “when Team X is in a 2×2 condensed formation, where the RB is on the same side as the Y, they run ‘mesh railroad’ 90% of the time.” Or, maybe it’s situational. “Every time it’s 2nd & medium from the open field, and Team X is in 11 personnel, they call a quick game concept.” You get the idea. The trick in IDing and decoding these offensive trends is that it affords Lanning and his defensive assistants ample time to gameplan against them, plucking premium coverages/pressures in the vault beforehand, ready to go for these Saturday situations.

Which begs the question: What formational/situational offensive tendencies do the Nittany Lions have that are in serious need of BREAKING on Saturday?

Well, we have a couple, but I believe the most relevant and vital is our tendencies within 2-Minute Situations. I’ll showcase two of Kotelnicki’s predictable go-to’s in hurry-up, beat-the-clock scenarios.

First up, 2×2 formation, Y to the boundary, RB to the field — inverted smash concept with H-Cross coming across the field.

PLAY ON PAPER:

PLAY ON VIDEO:

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good play. There are multiple coverage answers and opportunities for chunks. But it’s become incredibly predictable as Kotelnicki tends to lean on it near the end of halves.

Second, a personal favorite, but predictable concept. 3×1, formation into the boundary, RB strong, double post/wheel/swing concept.

PLAY ON PAPER:

PLAY ON VIDEO:

This concept is so predictable because of its unique formation… why else put 4 eligibles to the short side of the field if you aren’t going to flood that side and try to get a completion and get out of bounds? In fact, we’ve seen this SAME play since early Sept. Behold!

Now, to clarify, I’m not necessarily saying these are bad plays — but when a defense like Oregon 100% knows they’re coming, they’re not ideal calls. Could Kotelnicki use some reverse psychology and call them because Oregon is anticipating a constraint/counter play? Maybe… but the more logical idea is to build a second layer off of them — we’ll see if he does.