Our RBs and Red Zone Rush Attack
A funny thing happened on the way to the box score this week.
My impression from the game was that our RBs simply did not carry the load and that Denard was left out to dry in the running game. I would say that aside from the cupcake defenses this season (BG, Mass), our RBs have done an ok, but not overly impressive, job. But the box score shows that our backs did, at least, a decent job:
Smith, Vincent 7 34 0 34 0 13 4.9 Shaw, Michael 4 29 0 29 0 21 7.2 Hopkins, S. 2 13 0 13 0 7 6.5
But then there's the story that the box score can't tell...
that our 2nd/3rd and short running, along with our red zone running, was well below average. In fact, I think that was the big achilles for our offense. It's what added pressure on Denard to throw the ball in the red zone on 3rd downs. We would move the ball down the field well, using our backs to get decent 5/6 yd games, but then our red zone offense, usually our major strength, couldn't get us the big 2 or 3 yards. In taking away this short running game offense, Denard's dual threat was slightly marginalized which enabled MSU to drop more back in coverage.
So, while I know this weekend has brough generalized grievances (the INTs, the LBs, the Secondary), I think one specific situation that we need to improve on for next week is our 3rd and short and our red zone rush offense. I have alot of confidence that we can do that considering it has been a strength. Maybe get Hopkins more involved.
Obviously, we didn't have the big play this week that we usually see. But this team showed it could methodically drive the ball down the field. However, if we cannot run the ball on 3rd and short and in the red zone, then these kind of drives are bound to fail. Let's get this right for Iowa and look to get a big W.
October 11th, 2010 at 10:21 AM ^
FIRE EVERYONE!!1!!!1 BRING IN MORE TACKLING!!!11
October 11th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^
This is thoroughly annoying. There will be plenty more where this came from so either post something worthwhile or move on because if you're already at this point and it's Monday then I foresee a meltdown in your future.
October 11th, 2010 at 11:09 AM ^
I think he was being sarcastic.
October 11th, 2010 at 11:42 AM ^
I think he was referring to the fact that His Dudeness has used the same joke on other threads, not that he didn't catch the sarcasm.
EDIT: Wait, were you being sarcastic? Now I'm confused and worried that I don't understand the meaning of anything anymore.
October 11th, 2010 at 12:06 PM ^
MELTDOWN WING AT BW3 GOOD!~! MELTDOWN BRAINLOSS TO SPATY BAD!!!
October 11th, 2010 at 10:23 AM ^
I would love to see Hopkins get more involved. He pounds the ball and runs with authority. I think that RR will notice that from the film and get him a few more carries on short distance situations and in the goal to go situations.
October 11th, 2010 at 10:27 AM ^
I agree with your assessment on Hopkins. I was impressed with his play. I would've like to have seen him get more carries. However, I disagree with your thought on RR. If coach couldn't tell that Hopkins was effective carrying the ball during the game and instead needs to wait to watch film then I would say he isn't a good in-game coach.
October 11th, 2010 at 10:47 AM ^
I'm sure if he would have realized it then, then Hopkins would have had more than just 2 carries during the whole game. I think RR was trying to do to much every time we had the ball that the small things got away from him and Denard. Overall, our RBs didn't have many carries and I see that changing this week. Denard is a good passing QB but we need to be able to run the ball more, with him and the RBs.
As far as RR not being a good in-game coach, I will agree to a certain extent. I have noticed times when we get away from what is working to try something else. But you have to also see that RR is trying to open other things up and sometimes the game gets away from a coach. Hopefully everything will come together, but we will begin winning again sooner rather than later.
October 11th, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^
I thought he made some fairly costly blunders against State. Not running Hopkins enough (which we've discussed), not calling a timeout soon enough right before the huge catch by Odoms at the end of the first half which cost them 7 seconds and of course punting at the end. I can give him a mulligan for Hopkins but those other two are really bad and cost Michigan a shot. Otherwise he called a good game on offense and the players couldn't capitalize on some key plays.
October 11th, 2010 at 11:11 AM ^
Yeah I will agree with you on the not-called timeout and the punt. Needless to say, I was pretty furious at both of those situations. Luckily, I wasn't kicked out of the hotel room I was at watching the game.
October 11th, 2010 at 11:23 AM ^
have to remember that rrod was the same person that started sheridan over threet in game 1. I like RRod but his biggest weakness is favoring players that fit his system over just good players. We also need to remember Carlos Brown over Minor...which anyone could see that a healthy minor was just better in all aspects (instead of running in a straight line) than Brown.
October 11th, 2010 at 3:15 PM ^
We have the benefit of seeing a player for a limited number of carries. The coaching staff has the benefit of seeing them for a much longer period of time and under a number of different conditions.
PS - I think we accused Carr of the same thing... it is an axiom that the second string is always the crowd favorite when the team loses. I think our coaching staff is better able to evaluate talent better than I am...
October 11th, 2010 at 10:24 AM ^
One thing I was disappointed not to see was more swing passes to RBs. MSU is strong up the middle and weak on the perimeter. Why not attack them where they are weak?
Our play calling was a little bizarre, but I think that had a lot to do with the coaches seeing right away that Denard wasn't on his A game.
October 11th, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^
Wisky, even in the loss to them, blew their doors off on some runs to the outside. No reason to think that bubble screens(I don't remember seeing all that many of them) and RB swing passes(one I saw was a bad throw by Denard) to move more of their guys out of the box. We were still effective with our game plan when our guys weren't shooting themselves in the foot, but IMO, our offense could have moved the ball even easier with more outside stuff.
October 11th, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^
i thought denard would of done more of the running to the outside during the game, but he didn't. Thought he could of converted that first 3rd and 4 when he threw the INT.
October 11th, 2010 at 10:38 AM ^
They were able to convert those short yardage situations and keep their drives going. We could not. Maybe this means we'll go I-back in those situations in the future. Or maybe use playaction a little more. Or maybe go 4 wide to open up more running lanes.
Basically with the talent we have on offense, they will be able to fix this issue without having to tinker a lot with the offense.
October 11th, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^
Could be wrong, but isn't the one problem with stretching the field horizontally is that eventually the vertical threat doesn't become a factor (e.g., the redzone)? It is then that the simplicity of the offensive scheme gets a bit exploited. I would love for the team to go 2 or 3 wide with Denard under center.
October 11th, 2010 at 12:08 PM ^
The most frustrating about that box score is the number of attempts,and the yards per carry. The running game was there, and was working, and we got away from it way too soon in an effort to try and turn Denard into Peyton Manning. Besides the running game, the screen game was also available in chunk yardage to take advantage of all day.
It was a strange gameplan to say the least. I am not sure if it was the coaches call to get away from the run game, or if that was what Denard was reading, but it should have been fixed in game. The simple plays were there all day, and it was frustrating to watch.
It seemed that the entire team lacked conifence from the coaching staff on down to the players. I am not sure why RR lacks confidence in his other backs, but slamming Vince up the middle is not a recipe for success whether he is healthy or not.
RR seems to lack a lot of confidence with the entire playbook. I watched a lot of WVU games while he was there, and there is so much more to his playbook, than we have never even seen 3 years into the system. I am not sure if he lacks if is a lack of confidence in them grasping it, or they just havea failure to execute certain packages at certain positions, but it is beginning to be a little frustrating to watch how much he has dumbed things down, when he has stuff that would give us a lot of mismatches against opposing defenses.