Robinson inherits PSU QB reins |

Robinson inherits PSU QB reins

UNIVERSITY PARK – Zack Mills sat on the Penn State bench Saturday, his left knee wrapped with an ice pack, chatting with, of all people, Matt Senneca.

It all had an eerily familiar feel.

Once upon a time — actually the 2001 season — Senneca had struggled as Penn State’s starting quarterback. Mills, through a combination of good relief efforts and Senneca injury problems, eventually supplanted the increasingly unpopular Senneca, who ended up leaving the team with eligibility remaining.

Fast forward to 2003 and Mills is the incumbent quarterback incurring the wrath of the fans as Penn State struggles. Backup Michael Robinson, the guy who went in when Mills sprained his left knee at the end of the first quarter yesterday, with the Nittany Lions already trailing by 14 points, will start next weekend barring miraculous medical word regarding Mills.

This meant that questions of playcalling and clock management in the aftermath of Penn State’s 20-14 loss to Minnesota at Beaver Stadium were somehow secondary to the matter of whether this is a temporary blip in Mills’ career or a changing of the quarterback guard.

According to Mills, he and Senneca weren’t discussing such weighty matters on the sideline. Instead, the former quarterback, who just happened to be in town for the weekend, ended up chatting football and trying to take Mills’ mind off his current disappointment.

“I didn’t want to spend that much time with Matt,” said Mills, who was doing his best to retain his sense of humor. “But it ended up that I did.”

Whether or not Mills is destined for extensive sideline time even after his knee heals is a question the redshirt junior was not eager to entertain on this day.

“Until someone tells me otherwise, once I come back, I’ll be the starter,” Mills said.

Joe Paterno was defensive regarding both his quarterbacks after the Lions fell to 2-3 overall and 0-1 in the Big Ten.

“I think they’re both effective. I don’t think our problem’s been our quarterbacks,” he said. “There have been a lot of other things that haven’t gone as well as you’d like. I think the quarterbacks have hung in there and done a pretty good job.”

Mills had very modest success yesterday, hitting just 3 of 7 passes for 15 yards. He ran for twice as many yards, including 14 on the option run that ended the first quarter and his day when his knee buckled as he was tackled.

Robinson halved the 14-0 deficit when he directed the possession he inherited from Mills to a touchdown.

Penn State got to within three points, 17-14, at the half, and Robinson moved the team 67 yards in 12 plays on a drive for a potential tying touchdown late in the fourth quarter before coming up short at the Minnesota 13-yard line.

“It was a big loss for us, but we learned from it,” Robinson said, pausing slightly. “Our offense does work.”

He was laughing at the last part.

The Penn State offense, leaning heavily on the option, netted 266 rushing yards. Robinson had 42 of those. He also completed 16 of 27 passes for 178 yards. On the downside, he threw two interceptions, although one was the fault of a receiver running a bad route, and the other, as replays showed, wasn’t an interception at all as the ball hit the ground.

“I can throw the ball,” Robinson said matter-of-factly.

He can run it, too, prompting speculation about potential tweaks to the Penn State offense if he’s the main man for the near term.

“I really don’t know,” Robinson said. “Joe has a plan, and I just can’t wait to see what’s in it.”

Fans want to see if Robinson can revitalize the offense that has been struggling for reasons beyond the play of Mills.

As for Mills, he’s only human if he has begun to fear he’s the next Senneca.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.