ShareThis Page
Penn State notebook: Defense gets off to strong start |

Penn State notebook: Defense gets off to strong start

| Sunday, September 4, 2016 5:18 p.m
Barry Reeger | Tribune-Review
Penn State defensive end Shareef Miller (48) sacks Kent State quarterback Justin Agner (7) on Saturday, Sept. 3, 2016, at Beaver Stadium in University Park.

UNIVERSITY PARK — Penn State’s defense held Kent State’s offense to two field goals in the Nittany Lions’ 33-13 win Saturday. The lone Golden Flashes’ touchdown came when they returned a Trace McSorley fumble 20 yards for six points.

Questions and concerns surrounded the Nittany Lions’ defense heading into their Week 1 matchup with the Golden Flashes, mainly because defensive linemen Austin Johnson, Carl Nassib and Anthony Zettel were selected in the NFL Draft in April.

Last season, the Nittany Lions held opposing offenses without a touchdown in two games. They already have done it once this year.

Defensive end Garrett Sickels said he hopes Saturday’s performance will quiet the questioners about how the Lions will replace the three departed stars on the defensive line.

“I was over that question on our media day,” Sickels said. “I was looking at this whole (preseason) camp saying, ‘All right guys, we have a big statement we have to make this year. Our first game is our opportunity to do it.’ ”

Sickels, the Lions’ only returning starter on the defensive line, and the rest of the defense made that statement. Penn State finished with seven sacks.

Miller time

Defensive end Shareef Miller made the most of his playing time, notching 1 12 sacks and recording five tackles. It was a breakout performance for the redshirt freshman in his first collegiate game.

Coach James Franklin said, though, that Miller’s strong performance will have to translate to practice for him to see more playing time.

“He doesn’t practice like that,” Franklin said. “If he would understand and embrace that, and practice every day at a much higher level, he could have an unbelievable college career here.”

Maturing McSorley

McSorley completed 16 of 31 passes for 209 yards, mixing deep routes down the sidelines with short drags across the middle. He threw two touchdown passes, one a 4-yard quick slant to DaeSean Hamilton, the other a 30-yard vertical route to a wide-open Mike Gesicki.

Franklin was pleased with McSorley’s performance, though he acknowledges the redshirt sophomore has room to grow.

“It’s a good starting point,” Franklin said. “But it’s nowhere where I know he wants to be and nowhere where we need him to be, long term.”

Barkley breaks 100

Saquon Barkley gained 105 rushing yards on 22 carries, though just two of them went for longer than 10 yards.

Still, the constant 5-yard gains wore down a Golden Flashes defense that stacked most of its defenders consistently in the box to stop the sophomore back. On more than a handful of carries, Barkley was hit first behind the line of scrimmage before turning the would-be-losses into multi-yard gains.

Kicking deep

Kicker Joey Julius cracked Golden Flashes returner Kavious Price on a 22-yard return with just under eight minutes to play in the second quarter.

The 258-pound Julius showed flashes of his sneaky athleticism last season when he handled both kickoff and field goal duties. In 2016, Julius is responsible only for kickoffs as Tyler Davis has taken over as place kicker.

Julius thrived Saturday in his new role when he launched six touchbacks. The kick that ended with a Hulk-smash hit was the only time Price attempted a return.

Matt Martell is a freelance writer.

Categories: PennState
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.