A FRONT ROW VIEW: Penn Defense Keeps on rolling

Coming into the 1993 season, the general consensus was that if the Penn football team were to win any games this season, it would primarily be because of its defense. But thanks to people named McGeehan, Macik, Stokes and Brassell, the Quaker offense has been the toast of campus so far this season. However, in Saturday's titanic win against Princeton, it was the Penn defense which reminded everyone that it is the Quakers' bread and butter. Princeton came into the game with an offense averaging 419.7 yards a game, 252.4 of which came on the ground, mostly thanks to Keith Elias. Keith who? The Penn defense, on the other hand, entered the contest ranked fifth in the country in total defense, although thus far this season it had been overshadowed by the high-octane Quaker offense. Not anymore. The Quakers were all over Princeton's offense like a bad haircut (which, of course, the newly-mohawked Elias had), limiting the Tiger workhorse to a measly 59 yards on the day on only 15 carries – Elias's worst non-injury performance in two years. Keith who? Elias stumbled and bumbled his way to a miserable performance for a variety of reasons – most important of which was Princeton quarterback Joel Foote's inability to hold on to the ball long enough to get rid of it. But it also helped that when Elias did indeed get the ball, he was stoned at the line by any one of seven Penn defenders eager to treat Division I-AA's leading rusher and an NFL prospect to a 15-course turf dinner (one for each carry). Penn's linebacking quartet of Dave Betten, Andy Berlin, Pat Goodwillie and Pup Turner, while they may not be singing barbershop anytime soon, sure did zero-in on Elias's bad haircut all day to the tune of bone-crushing hits. Elias said that Goodwillie possessed "concrete shoulder pads," and on Saturday Goodwillie was one of many who put it to Princeton's Cementhead. Also, Betten had said earlier in the week that Elias is so good because he makes people miss, but on Saturday the Penn defense was not fooled at all, mainly because the Quakers had a defender anywhere Elias wanted to go, poised for the pouncing. The Quakers were able to gang-tackle Elias thanks to Foote's tendency to overthrow every open receiver by at least 10 yards. (Hey, at least he was able to hold onto the ball enough to attempt 27 passes). Foote's ineffectiveness allowed the Quakers to send more defenders up to the line in an effort to contain Elias. And it sure worked, as Elias was absent for basically the entire game, and seen cursing on the sidelines after each ineffective Tiger drive. Keith who? At the rate the Quakers are putting up points on offense this season, the Penn defense seems to get lost in the shuffle for one simple reason. Offense is much flashier than defense. That happens when the goal of football is to score more points than the opposition. But so many times a game is won or lost by a good defense. An excellent offense can take advantage of anyone while a one-dimensional offense can only succeed against a bad defense. On Saturday, Princeton's offense met up with an excellent defense, and I don't think you'll hear anybody talking about the Tiger scoring machine or that potent Princeton offense anymore. The Penn defense does indeed deserve credit for the win. But it would not have been such a one-sided game were it not for the miserable play-calling by the Princeton coaching staff. Now Penn has beat up on some pretty bad teams with pretty bad coaches so far this season, but the effort from the Tigers' offensive coaching staff cannot go without beratement. This was one of the worst-coached teams I have ever seen, and that was evident from the opening play of the game, when Foote tried to fool the Penn defense by trying to launch one deep to Marc Ross – only to have the pass end up closer to Al Bagnoli than to Ross himself. Now I'm no football coach, nor do I profess to being a football genius, but wouldn't you hand the ball off early, often and again to your back that averages 183.7 yards a game? It's also hard to fool a team with the pass when your quarterback overshoots his receivers by about 10 yards a play (of course, that's only when he is able to hold on to the ball). Another thing that the Princeton coaches should be ashamed of is that Foote had as many carries as Elias (that is, when he actually held on to the ball). Of course, the typical thing is to pass from behind, but I mean come on, when you have Keith Elias as a tailback and Joel Foote as a quarterback, I don't understand how you should ever pass the ball. The Tigers were down 21-7 at halftime, so they had 30 minutes to make up two touchdowns. Yet Elias only had five carries in the second half. What were the Princeton coaches thinking? Maybe they were scared into the pass because the run was not there, and the Penn defense was. As it has quietly been all season. Dan Feldman is a College senior from Dallas, Texas, and Sports Editor of the Daily Pennsylvanian.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.