Fee Fi Foe Film: Michigan State Offense Comment Count

Ace


Cackle with knowing glee if...

Michigan State entered the Rutgers game with a banged-up offensive line and it showed; star left tackle Jack Conklin didn't play—and the "available in an emergency" caveat seemed dubious at best given the score and the success of RU's D-line—while Kodi Kieler, the normal starting right tackle, struggled mightily in his first game back from injury, not looking nearly 100% as he was in and out of the game at left tackle.

Then Rimington-caliber center Jack Allen, who'd slid out to left tackle when Kieler was on the bench, got rolled up on late in the game; his status for Michigan is very much in doubt, possibly even more so than Conklin or Kieler.

Rutgers dominated up front against MSU. Michigan's D-line awaits. This could be a real good time.

Personnel. Seth's diagram once again requires GIF form, this time to represent the myriad possibilities on State's O-line, which are helpfully mapped out at The Only Colors [click to embiggen]:

Now with D-line rotation.

Spread, Pro-Style, or Hybrid? Hybrid. MSU went with a lot of two-wide ace and I-form on first down, almost always to run the ball, and when that didn't work they'd go into the gun and usually add another receiver for second and third downs.

Basketball on Grass or MANBALL? Mostly zone stuff.

Hurry it up or grind it out? State tried to tempo Rutgers exactly once and had a run get blown up at the line. Otherwise, they were content to huddle up and grind it out.

[Hit THE JUMP for the rest of the breakdown.]

Quarterback Dilithium Level (Scale: 1 [Navarre] to 10 [Denard]): Connor Cook is a capable but not explosive runner. MSU got a key first down on a read option keeper in this one when Cook didn't waste any time getting upfield; they'll break out a designed QB run every so often to keep defenses honest. Cook's mobility comes into play more in the passing game; he's good at breaking the pocket and throwing on the run, though he uses his legs more to buy time than to scramble downfield. He gets a 6.

Dangerman: The dangermen on the offensive line are all injured to some degree, so I'll skip discussion of them for now.

You're familiar with Cook. I thought he was phenomenal in this game given the circumstances. Despite facing a heavy rush on many of his attempts, he averaged 9.4 yards per attempt with no completion longer than 29 yards, and he only had one glaring error, uncharacteristically forcing a pass into the end zone that Rutgers intercepted in spectacular fashion.

Otherwise, Cook made several spectacular throws, often of the impossible-to-defend back-shoulder variety:

I had him down for five DOs in this game and could've given him one or two more. Other than a tendancy to occasionally sail passes to his left, he's very accurate, and he was really impressive at throwing while under duress—he'll need a similar performance Saturday.

Cook's top target all season, meanwhile, has been Aaron Burbridge, who's gone from disappointment to one of the best receivers in college football during his senior season. He's got twice as many catches as any other Spartan this year; he's dangerous both as a downfield threat and a catch-and-run target—MSU even gave him a couple jet sweeps in this one. Handling him one-on-one is a difficult task:

Expect Jourdan Lewis to shadow Burbridge in arguably the most important personnel matchup of this game.

Zook Factor: Dantonio had a moment of #B1G, punting on 4th-and-6 from the Rutgers 44 with the Spartans clinging to a three-point lead. While the punt pinned RU at the five, they drove for the tying field goal anyway.

HenneChart: On a high volume of throws, Cook put up an impressive Downfield Success Rate, especially when considering the heat he faced:

Opponent DO CA MA IN BR TA BA PR SCR DSR
Rutgers 5 19 (5) 1 3 4x 1 -- 6 -- 70%

Note the pressure figure: MSU's line really struggled. Cook has a quick release and usually makes his reads in a hurry and he still ended up rushing a large number of throws.

OVERVIEW

I found MSU's offense rather predictable. When Cook goes under center, they usually run. When he's in the gun, they throw.

Formations Run Pass PA
Gun 8 30 6
I-Form 8 1 --
Ace 12 -- 1
Pistol -- -- --
Heavy 8 -- 1

Most of those under-center snaps come on first down.

Down Run Pass PA
1st 24 4 3
2nd 7 13 4
3rd 5 13 1

That's almost as predictable as Northwestern's offense; MSU just decides to start throwing a down earlier.

The discussion of this offense has to start with the offensive line, which looked bad in all phases. The run game never got going outside of one nice first-half run by Gerald Holmes when Rutgers screwed up their run fits and a couple half-decent gains by LJ Scott at the very end of the game; MSU averaged 3.3 YPC against the nation's #79 run defense by S&P+. Kieler looked nearly immobile at left tackle; everyone not named Jack Allen underwhelmed. The screencap that graces the top of this post isn't out of line with how they performed all night.

A huge factor in that was confusion up front when Rutgers did anything besides rush four guys without any frippery. If they blitzed or stunted, missed pickups were the norm.

Communication should improve if Conklin is able to give it a go at left tackle, but his health is in doubt and the probable loss of Allen at center likely offsets any improvement that would bring from a communication standpoint. This line looked overwhelmed against Rutgers; Michigan's defensive front is just a bit better than Rutgers' and now MSU almost certainly has to shake up their lineup again.

The lack of blocking made it hard to judge the running backs but I've watched a fair amount of MSU this season. Madre London is a solid back who's got some power but isn't a huge open-field threat; naturally, he got hurt and didn't return. Gerald Holmes was next in line in this game; he made a couple nice open-field cuts to break off the 30-yarder and otherwise did very little. Touted freshman LJ Scott has an impressive size/speed combination and gets the edge more often than the other backs; he's more of a threat to break a play for 20 yards than to go all the way, but I'd still consider him their big-play back.

Burbridge was covered above; he's the biggest threat on this offense. The rest of the receivers are pretty meh. Macgarrett Kings Jr. is undersized for an outside receiver and not always reliable to bring the ball in. Slot RJ Shelton is far more dangerous on jet sweeps than downfield passes and jet sweeps seem ill-advised against this defense. DeAnthony Arnett—remember him?—had a couple big plays in this one, including a touchdown on a perfectly thrown wheel route, but he's only seen six targets all year. If Michigan can shut down Burbridge, State is in trouble.

The blocky/catchy types were pretty impressive. Josiah Price is among the walking wounded; when healthy he's a solid blocker who can threaten the seam. Paul Lang was targeted downfield a few times by Cook and looked like a viable receiver. Jamal Lyles is a plus as a blocker. Fullback Trevon Pendleton also impressed as a blocker; MSU will sometimes use him as a surprising lead blocker on screens:

That worked against Rutgers' soft coverage; we'll see if they even try it against Michigan.

Unless at least two of Conklin, Kieler, and Jack Allen are magically healthy for this game, I have a hard time seeing MSU consistently putting points on the board. Even with Allen healthy, MSU's runs mostly met a wad of bodies and their pass-blocking was downright bad. Cook will have to be near-perfect, and while he's very capable, he can't block for himself.

The absence of James Ross could hurt Michigan—the Spartans spend nearly equal time in one- or two-receiver sets as they did in 3+, so M might not be able to play base nickel—but he's only out for a half, Ben Gedeon exists, and State is likely to be throwing on second and third down anyway.

I can't avoid the conclusion that was obvious to anyone who watched this game: Michigan should maul MSU up front; with Jourdan Lewis a threat to completely neutralize Burbridge, State is going to have to move the ball in ways they so far haven't been able to do against much lesser defenses.

Comments

scparksDPT

October 14th, 2015 at 9:22 PM ^

Watching this game, I felt like MSU had no trust in their line (obviously). Evey thing had a little wrinkle to it or a misdirection. They were not able to just line up and overpower RU as they have to so many other teams in the past several year. i do not expect to see Michigan get bullied up front this year. Bring it on.

uncleFred

October 14th, 2015 at 9:28 PM ^

First of all, I expect most of those "injured" MSU guys to play and I don't think most of them are as banged up as claimed by the spin. I'm so sick of the "Michigan is lucky to catch MSU when they are so injured" narrative. MSU will show up as healthy as Michigan and ready to play. Realistically this is going to come down to coaching. Cook will rise to the occasion, so will our pass defense. Both offensive lines will struggle to create a run game against the opposing defensive lines. Rudock will need to complete a number of tough passes. But that's all checkers, these coaches will play chess. My guess is that Cook will pick apart the pass defense enough to get three TDs and Harbaugh will out coach Dantonio to get one long drive, one break out run, and one Rudock pass to a WR or TE for a total of three TDs. Then it comes down to special teams and turn overs. ASSuming neither QB coughs up the ball, the game will turn on field goals. I'm taking Michigan in an ugly win.

NeveranotherAk…

October 14th, 2015 at 9:54 PM ^

We are still in partial panic mode from the last few years guys. We have to look at match ups now differently than in the past. When we should dominate (under this staff), we will. No more demoting ourselves from poor coaching, play calling, and just plain bad juju bees. We look better, we are playing much better, and we have more confidence than this program has had in a long time. Heads high Wolverine nation for we will dominate this game. No more anxiety about this match up at least until Harbaugh retires after his tenure. Back to only worrying about OSU that's it. We might give up one score this game and a lot of us will be disappointed. Back to Michigan dominance. We have it good!

WolverineInCincy

October 14th, 2015 at 9:58 PM ^

I think people are missing something about this game. It's in AA. In the greatest stadium in the country. That place will be rocking and I think that will really pump some extra juice for Michigan. It's going to be a wild scene

Brianj25

October 14th, 2015 at 10:35 PM ^

But I think it's a little too optimistic. 

The raw statistics don't indicate it but MSU's offense has been outstanding. Despite the injuries and the offensive staff's weird obsession with playing "Tressel-ball" with a substantial lead, MSU is 11th nationally in offensive yards per drive and 13th in offensive points per drive. Although they haven't played any solid defenses nobody has come up with a sustainable game-plan to slow them down.

The MSU offense was dominant in the Rutgers game. They had ten possessions and punted just three times. They racked up 49 out of a possible 67 yards per drive -- acquiring almost 75 percent of the yards their offense could have possibly gained. For reference, we gained 44 percent of total available yards against Oregon State. And their dominance was put on full display when they opened up the playbook for the first time since the Oregon game using three long touchdown drives to rip the game away from Rutgers -- and the lone second-half drive that didn't end up in a MSU touchdown was killed by a penalty. 

With all due respect to Utah, this will be our defense's biggest test by a long shot. We're not going to shut them down completely. Our offense will have to put some points on the board. 

Indonacious

October 14th, 2015 at 11:22 PM ^

What about against Purdue? They put up 24 points against them...not exactly earth shattering. I also don't understand how you can extrapolate so much from the Rutgers game. Furthermore, it begs the question why Rutgers could have tied the game at the end despite msu displaying such a ruthlessly efficient offense.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Brianj25

October 14th, 2015 at 11:54 PM ^

RE Purdue: Their offense definitely wasn't "earth shattering" but I think this is another example of a potentially misleading stat. Their offense had 12 total drives -- one was killed by three penalties which gave them a long-yardage situation from their own 10-yard-line, another was killed by a fumble, and a third was victory formation kneeling. They had nine true drives and punted on four of them. 

It can and probably should be further broken down by half, since MSU started rotating in second and third stringers by the start of the third quarter -- as they led 21-0 -- and began the Tressel-Ball nonsense. MSU played 15 different offensive players in the first half and that number jumped to 24 by the end of the third quarter and 27 by the end of the game. In the second half they ran 32 plays -- 26 of them were runs. 

So, if we're trying to get a guage on how good MSU's offense is based on the Purdue game -- at least, the offense that we're likely to see Saturday -- you're probably going to want to throw all or most of the second half of that game out. We're not going to be seeing MSU's third stringers and they're certainly not going to be running almost exclusively the 32 Dive against us with those players.

In the first half against Purdue MSU had six drives. The first drive was a dud. They scored touchdowns on their next three consecutive drives. The next drive started inside the MSU 20-yard-line and holding-false start-false start killed it. The last drive went like this: London run; London run; London run; London run; London run; London run. It started on the MSU nine and went into Purdue territory before a controversial spot on a 3rd-and-1 run by London forced MSU to give the ball back to Purdue.

Again, it wasn't an amazing performance, but if you look deeper than traditional stats you can see that MSU's offense, at least the part of the offense that we should be concerned about, got pretty much whatever they wanted against Purdue. 

RE Rutgers: I can sum this one up neatly and simply -- MSU's defense is questionable right now and prone to giving up huge plays. 

NJWolverine

October 15th, 2015 at 7:15 AM ^

I've watched Rutgers all year; they're not a very good team.  This game revealed a lot because unlike the Purdue game, MSU didn't jump out to a big lead.  Rutgers was up 14-10 at half and the game was in doubt deep in the 4th quarter. 

The Rutgers coaching staff had 2 weeks to prepare and they came out with a good game plan that Harbaugh and co. can build off of (not that they need it, but whatever).  The only reason why MSU was able to score was because Cook made some huge throws under pressure, throws that are either going to be harder (with better coverage), or not there at all because Michigan will get to him faster.  When MSU is sending out hobbled players in the 4th quarter the week before their Super Bowl game, you know something's wrong.  MSU is not a top 10 team.

I also think you have to look at this game along with their other unimpressive victories.  It's not like OSU where they're dealing with QB issues, but you get the feeling (or expect) them to put it all together when in counts.  With MSU, they are what they are, and it's showing. 

jmblue

October 15th, 2015 at 9:17 AM ^

We've reached a point in statistical analysis at which you can find stats to justify almost any argument.  

MSU has scored 37 against WMU; 31 against Oregon; 35 (28 offensive) against Air Force; 30 against CMU; 24 against Purdue; and 31 against Rutgers.  Yes, scoring offense can at times be deceptive, but when you have six games and have never managed more than four offensive TDs in a game (against suspect competition at that) . . .  how good are you really?  

 

 

Brianj25

October 15th, 2015 at 11:04 AM ^

"[W]hen you have six games and have never managed more than four offensive TDs in a game (against suspect competition at that) . . .  how good are you really?"

It depends, which is why we use advanced stats. If a team plays its starters and retains aggressive play calling throughout the entire game, and the pace of the game allows them 15 true drives, then scoring four offensive touchdowns is not impressive at all. 

But if a team plays its starters and retains aggressive play calling throughout just four true drives, then four offensive touchdowns is pretty impressive. 

MSU is somewhere in between there. They're not going to blow anybody's doors off but if you're missing the advanced statistical analysis provided by adjusted data taken in context in favor of the facial statistical analysis of raw, unadjusted, out-of-context numbers, you're missing reality and you're going to be disappointed. But it seems like some people aren't missing reality so much as willingly ignoring it. 

And here's the kicker in all this: If Michigan State puts some points on the board on Saturday it'll be because Michigan State's offense is outstanding -- not because Michigan's defense is anything less than elite. 

jmblue

October 15th, 2015 at 11:52 AM ^

Aside from the opener, all of MSU's games have been competitive.  The CMU game, for instance, was 17-10 entering the fourth quarter.  So the argument that they just took their foot off the gas pedal is questionable.  

MSU can move the ball; they don't have that many three-and-outs.  But they're not great at finishing drives.  They've scored TDs on just 64% of redzone appearances.  That's where we get the descrepancy between the advanced stats (which are focused heavily on yardage) and their ordinary scoring offense.  

I don't think that stat is fluky; MSU's running game has sputtered much of the season and while their passing game has been pretty good, it's very dependent on a single receiver (Burbridge), who doesn't have as much room to operate near the goal line.  I feel pretty good about Jourdan Lewis covering him (or pretty much anyone else).  I also feel very good about our ability to stop their run game, especially given the state of their OL.    If we lose this game it will likely be due to Cook being able to find secondary receivers consistently for key gains.  That's possible, but I'm not sure he'll have enough time in the pocket.

Brianj25

October 14th, 2015 at 11:23 PM ^

I'm just using the most recent game as a point of reference b/c it's the one people are talking about for the most part. On the face of things it looks like MSU's offense did well though not amazing, but a deeper look shows that Rutgers couldn't even pretend to slow them down. 

We'll absolutely be their biggest test. I just think the optimism and expectations need to be tempered a little bit. Most people are relying on traditional stats and several snaps that they've watched to come to the opinion that MSU's offense has been pretty good but not great. People are going to be disappointed if they expect a pretty good but not great offense to show up at our house on Saturday. 

bronxblue

October 14th, 2015 at 11:22 PM ^

Nice breakdown.  Kind of what I've seen with a couple of their games.

it will be a test, but this offense scares me way less than I thought this point in the season.

uminks

October 15th, 2015 at 1:44 AM ^

Harbaugh and his OCs should have enough new wrinkles and plays to get the offense some points. The key is shutting down Cook and if the DLINE plays as well as it has been then Cook will have a rough afternoon.

NeveranotherAk…

October 15th, 2015 at 2:05 AM ^

The way the D line is getting massive penetration. The way the corners are completely shutting down receivers. The LB's are getting to the play with manball rage. Peppers is closing the edges out like a mad man. The only way this D gets beat is by a speedster QB. Sorry Cook, you are not that guy. I don't think that guy is on our schedule. Sorry B1G...

ca_prophet

October 15th, 2015 at 5:26 AM ^

Not that Utah isn't well-coached, but MSU knows our players and whatever else we might say about him, Dantonio can coach.  I expect to see a number of rolled pockets to get Cook away from the rush and let him hit a few of those short slants that turn into big gains if we miss the tackle.  I expect other wrinkles as well to slow down the pass rush; if they work, and Cook has time, he'll likely do a lot better on those slants/short routes that are open against us.

 

dragonchild

October 15th, 2015 at 8:04 AM ^

You're not alone in looking at the drops and inaccurate throws in a vacuum.  Over the last few games, others have said offenses left yards on the field.

I agree that has happened to an extent, but it's a mistake to think of it all as good fortune.  This D has made offenses work for every yard.  We're not leading the nation in sacks because no one's lightning-quick and WDE ("Buck") is our weakest ("weak" being very relative here) DL spot, but the DTs have been collapsing the pocket almost every down.  So instead of being blindsided, the QBs can see death coming at them.  As a result, relatively few sacks, but those guys are very much throwing offenses out of rhythm.  QBs have to stare at pressure and/or throw on the run, the ball's out quicker, receivers have to catch off-target passes with a DB in their noon shadow as soon as their heads turn around -- then hold on as they get violently grappled by Lewis, Peppers, et.al.  All of those are possible to execute, but it's very, very difficult to hurry AND be precise at the same time.  And as they continue to face that pressure, if they start anticipating it, their technique starts to break down.  Opponents' errors aren't masking issues; they're being forced by the D.

Can MSU overcome that?  Maybe.  Cook and Burbridge certainly looked good under pressure last week.  They will be a test for this D, but that goes both ways.  They've yet to have to execute against this sort of D, even scrimmaging against Sparty's 2013 unit, and you know why I say that?  Because this D is doing things that haven't been done in decades.  Statistically, a college D this good has not existed in Cook's lifetime.

I mean, if Cook and Burbridge manage to beat our D, then they're both first-round picks and there's nothing you can do but tip your hat to that.

looty

October 15th, 2015 at 7:21 AM ^

I can see them trying to pick on Peppers with quick slant routes.  Seen BYU, OSU and most recently Northwestern all were able to hit those quick slants.  

Mgodiscgolfer

October 15th, 2015 at 9:13 AM ^

of hearing, well MSU has won 6 of the last 7! I need to hear 6 of the last 8 next year, then 6 of the last 9 the following year, Then I will start saying they have lost the last 3 in a row, which sounds sooo much better to me than 6 of the last 7.

Things that are better than last year. Our special teams are ranked in the top ten national in every catagory. Our defense is top 5 in almost every catagory.  The offensive line improvements are night and day. The running game has improved dramatically. We are finally the home team. Coaching is second to none. Peppers was out  last season and not available to play. 

I have felt like some fans wondering why I am so confident  going into this game with the almighty Spartans. Even though the more I think about it the more confident I become,  so I have declared that it is fine to expect a win and it won't  jinx the team by feeling this way. So go ahead and scream it from the top of a mountain, We will kill Staee you will be fine.

MichiganSkeptic

October 15th, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^

We have reason to be concerned, based on MSU's dominance of this rivalry the past 8 years, which has led to an extreme lack of self-confidence on M's part over the years.  HOWEVER, in major rivalry series, coaching changes have proven to cause almost immediate sea changes in the way the rivalry has gone.  Take for example:

Bo's taking over in 1969, immediately reversing the utter dominance of OSU the 15 previous years;

John Cooper taking over at OSU and immediately causing OSU to go into a tailspin in the rivalry;

Jim Tressel taking over from Cooper and immediately upsetting Michigan and taking complete control of the rivalry;

D'antonio taking over at MSU and turning the perennial losers in this rivalry into an instant contender (losing the first game in overtime) and then a perennial winner (6 of the last 7).

Jim Harbaugh is just such a sea change coach.  Therefore, while I do think MSU has a good chance to win this game based on their superior talent to the teams we've been facing this year; I don't think they will win due to any lingering lack of confidence on M's part or hangover from the last 7 years.  For that reason, I believe M will win, but it will not be anywhere near a blowout and MSU will absolutely score points.

MichiganSkeptic

October 15th, 2015 at 10:48 AM ^

Another point:  While the Michigan pass defense has been strong, it has not actually been blanketing receivers.  Northwestern receivers dropped numerous balls that made it to their hands (including the JL pick 6).  From watching MSU film, including Rutgers, their receivers have sticky hands and will catch anything that's put on the money.  Had NU receivers been able to do that, NU would have multiple opportunities to score.  We will have to put extreme pressure on Cook to cut down on his accuracy.

ND Sux

October 15th, 2015 at 11:12 AM ^

I am seriously stunned at the level of paranoia in these comments.  Holy fuck people, state has played poorly, and their stats bear that out - especially given the strength of opponents.  Their "signature" win now looks like a dog turd.  They are 83rd (!) in total defense against the same array of dog turds.  We WILL run the ball for about 200 yards.  We WILL stop their overmatched offense.  We WILL win the damn game, and it's not going to be that close.  NW is a BETTER team than MSU is right now.  Get ahold of yourselves and enjoy this team.  It's REAL. 

zuharaboxe

October 15th, 2015 at 2:29 PM ^

 
Start   working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail
---------------------- ◐◐◐◐◐◐◐◐   w­w­w.b­u­z­z­n­e­w­s­9­9­­.­c­o­­m