Questions about MSU defense
Three questions about MSU defense.
1. Are they playing a version of Bear defense that Ryan ran in Chicago? I remember that they would load the box as well and would not give QBs any time to complete a pass down field.
2. Does one need elite CB to run the MSU/Bear defense? I suppose the answer is yes at pro level, but how about college level?
3. Are MSU's CBs and Safeties really fast and quick or is it the scheme and technique that let them play at high level? Pressure up front is a big help to them but it seemed to me that the pressure up front was not as much of a factor in shutting down the passing game last night (compared to what happened to us or OSU).
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:06 AM ^
(Fart noise)
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:16 AM ^
In their first year, Hoke and Mattison were able to dramatically improve the personnel from a GERG defense with the key to that improvement being MM and RVB...guys who were calling their own stunts on the line. High football IQ and senior leadership. That's the beginning of a great defense.
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:59 AM ^
But I sometimes think its getting overplayed. Especially around here, like its our excuse for having a bad year, or a bad o-line, etc. Too Young, but when you watch the MNC in a few days, just remeber between the 2 teams on offense. There are a total of 3 seniors starting.
At some point, talent overrides Senior leadership. But the talent does still need to be "coached"
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:05 AM ^
The development can only START with good leadership, taking what the coaches are teaching you and using the non-20 hours a week (or whatever that number is) to make the most of their time. If the coaches are teaching you crap, then...well...you do the math. But I agree that coaching is the catalyst, the senior leadership (heck, they can be juniors too) is the base requirement.
If I was in charge for a day, the first coach I'd look at replacing is the OL coach.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:27 AM ^
Someone looked at MSU's defensive starting lineup at another site and I was amazed how they had only 2 3rd year guys starting with the rest being 4th and 5th year guys. It's amazing what an upperclassman driven unit can do with great coaching. Youth is only part of the equation and our whole coaching staff dropped the ball this season. Changes will be made and I hope to see a much more disciplined and hard-working team out there next year.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:00 AM ^
Really? According to Rivals, FSU starts 1 RS Senior, 2 Seniors, 1 RS Junior, and 6 juniors around their RS freshman quarterback. Also, according to Rivals, the only backup on their depth chart who has been in the system less than 3 years is their backup fullback, although they do have a junior listed at third string.
Their defense is a bit younger, as they start 3 sophmores and a freshman. Of course, they also start 4 seniors and a fifth-year as well.
And while Auburn doesn't have many seniors on offense, they do have 7 juniors that start. I guess we also ignore that they start 5 seniors and 5 juniors on defense as well.
Yeah, they really compare to Michigan in terms of age/experience. Oh, and even though Malzahn is only a first-year head coach, he recruited most of the offense for Auburn as the OC. Fisher has been at FSU for 4 years; how many of Hoke's recruits were upperclassmen this year?
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:25 AM ^
think you just proved his point.. even if there was more the 3 senoirs combined.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:36 AM ^
its not the high football iq or leadership, its the improved discipline from the rest of the defense surrounding disruptive pass rushers (mike martin and RVB and Roh to some extent with freshman jake ryan and kovacs as great blitzers). thats why we improved. give mattison somebody who can consitently win 1-on-1 battles and pressure the qb and he will make a dominant defense.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:58 AM ^
I see exactly what you're saying, but I will reiterate that the IQ and leadership is just the start of a great defense. You still need all those things you mentioned down to the player's abilities, no question about it.
Remember what was one of the greatest things about Jordan Kovacs? It wasn't because he was incredibly fast or strong, it was because he was always in the right spot...very smart player. And like I said, the IQ is just the start of a great defense. Good coaching, disruptive pass rushers, all that...are still needed.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:04 AM ^
Well, in addition to being a senior who seemed to be smart and a good leader, Mike Martin was an absolute terror on the inside and (if memory serves) was capable of blowing up plays single handedly. Sort of like what Jake Ryan does sometimes, except much more consistently.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^
I believe they still don't have someone to fil those spots vacated by Martin and Van Bergen as well. I think it shows.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^
for "fart noise". No idea why you wrote that and I'm way too old for that to make me lol, but lol I did.
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:07 AM ^
I can tell you that their 2 recent All-American CBs were not highly recruited (per Rivals):
Darqueze Dennard - 2*
Johnny Adams - 3*
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:12 AM ^
But were they diamond in the rough? Would they be equally effective at, say, UM? I am trying to see if there is anything about the scheme that can be duplicated with equal success. Or one needs really talented CBs to run the scheme.
If it relies heavily on talent, then we should see a significant drop off next year.
January 2nd, 2014 at 2:40 PM ^
And four young 3* guys you've never heard of fighting for Dennard's vancantcy.
Barrnett - MSU's DB coach - is impressed with all of them.
I guess it's scouting, scheming, coaching up, practice, experience, repetition, and eventually understanding.
Pretty sure Lewis is MSU's only 4* DB since Dantonio arrived (not counting this current class).
I don't know. Go ahead and look back at the DB's UofM signed since 2007 that were also offered by MSU. Probably the majority of them. Then, look at the DB's MSU signed since 2007, but were NOT offered by UofM - possibly all of them.
Dantonio wanted/offered lots of guys that ended up at UofM. Not quite as true the other way around. Gotta have talent,but gotta have the right scheming, coaching up, and game coaching.
January 2nd, 2014 at 1:25 PM ^
Johnny adams also got consistently torched on the defense his senior year.. and caused them to give up a ton of huge plays.. also lost them several games when he allowed some late TD's..
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:08 AM ^
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:29 AM ^
Would anyone read it if it were?
No
It's the way the board works.
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:11 AM ^
I was thinking about this yesterday as well. It would seems like you'd need your entire secondary (those that are in coverage anyway) to be very athletic and nearly flawless in their decision-making. I'd love to read an analysis of how their defense works.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:42 AM ^
here is a write up from spacecoyote http://www.maizenbrew.com/2013/10/30/5045564/michigan-state-cover-4-defense-adjustments-primer with some links inside to other posts he has done on them as well. they do have an athletic experienced secondary, ends that can rush the passer, and linebackers that are very athletic and react extremely fast
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:12 AM ^
MSU was also pretty fortunate on a few plays. The dropped INT that Fowler ended up catching led to points. The PI call (ball was 15 feet in the air) on the first MSU TD gave them 4 points, and the holding call on the other Stanford INT was pretty lame IMO. If some of those calls or bounces go the other way, we're talking Stanford in a rout and perceptions of MSU are different.
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:32 AM ^
MSU is beatable over the top. You have to come with the plays you practice though. Hindsight is 20/20.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^
ND scored 17 points against MSU. It's not like they unveiled some huge weakness. Moreover, ND drew a ton of pass interference calls that day just to get in position to score. After that game, Dantonio went nuclear on the officials and MSU never seemed to get flagged for PI much the rest of the season.
I would say MSU's defense looked most vulnerable all year when they tried to stop Carlos Hyde in the BTCG - he averaged 6 yards a carry, but Ohio didn't feed him the ball that much - he only had like 18 carries, and they didn't give him the ball on those two crucial short-yardage plays that basically decided the game.
I don't think it was unreasonable for Stanford - which has been a run-first team all year - to go into this game with a ground-heavy gameplan. I think they should have mixed it up with some of their specific playcalls (the inside run on 4th and 4 was definitely questionable) - but ultimately, they did what they'd been good at. In most games this year, Hogan would attempt around 18-20 passes. He's a solid player but not Andrew Luck.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:59 AM ^
But you have to keep going deep. Kelly gambled that he'd get the calls b/c Sparty does blur the line on almost every play.
If Michigan QBs and WRs are prepping in the offseason for Sparty in addition to Ohio, and unfortunately I think it's time they need to do that, they must be practicing the long ball. Their defense counts on the fact that most teams have difficulty completing deep passes at the college level, and especially in the B1G. If they're going to leave guys on islands over and over, you have to take advantage of that over and over.
Plus the LBs play so hard downhill, because I believe the safeties can pick up their routes on play action. Given this, I don't know why fake pumps aren't used more often over the middle of the field. We had Funchess wide open on an "Oh Noes" when Gardner inadvertantly faked by targeting him on that play. The safeties sucked up and covered him, and Devin tucked and ran or got killed or whatever. But the announcer pointed out that a moment later Funchess was wide open behind the safeties.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:07 AM ^
The problem with going deep all the time is that you have to protect your passer. That's hard to do consistently against this MSU defense. It could be different next year; they break in some new guys and maybe their corners won't be good enough to play one-on-one consistently. But this year it was tough.
Again, as "great" as Kelly's gameplan might have seemed, his team only scored 17, not the most points MSU gave up. ND really won that game by holding the MSU offense to 13.
January 2nd, 2014 at 8:20 PM ^
ND won that game by passing. PI tacked on gave them over 200 yards in the air.
You need to pass to get MSU to stop it with the downhill. Not always deep either.
Stanford's defense was good enough to win that game.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:10 AM ^
And I think that you can't be afraid to throw a couple of interceptions. Stanford took a couple of shots, and then stopped when they turned the ball over. An interception on a 40-50 yard pass is no worse than punting, really. The payoff on hitting is big enough to counter that.
Michigan's main problem with going deep is they couldn't keep Devin clean enough to go deep regularly.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:22 AM ^
"Devin tucked and ran or got killed or whatever. But the announcer pointed out that a moment later Funchess was wide open behind the safeties."
Those double-move deep routes with fake pumps take time, and it does no good at all to get a receiver wide open behind the safeties after your quarterback has already gotten kiiled or whatever.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^
But Devin left the pocket because he had happy feet (understandably so). If the intention was to fake the zone read, then fake pump the Oh Noes, and pull it up and throw it over the top, he had time to do that on the play. Even with our terrible OL.
And I didn't mention this in my post, but it wasn't a deep route. The Oh Noes plays never really are - they're fake ZR's then pop pass to the TE or whoever (I think Herbstreit refers to all of those type of plays as a pop passes). This was near the goal line.
And the distinction is important, because if you're going against the corners on an island (although they do get help at times), then yes those deep routes take time. And further the CBs are in man coverage, so they're not even looking at the QB unless you sell the first break hard, making a fake pump ineffective.
But if you're attacking the downhill overly aggressive LB's, you're working the middle of the field 5-15 yards out and the safeties. The LBs can crash, and the safeties pull up to pick up coverage responsibilities in that area. If you send Butt out there on a slant or seam and fake pump, it doesn't take that much time. And now you have a safety running forward, if he bites he's flat footed and can't recover. So if you're attacking the safeties and this tendency, the fake pump is a weapon.
But what the hell do I know, I'm sure there are other counters to this idea.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:07 AM ^
Hyde got going because OSU came out and started throwing the ball and MSU had to back off him. Once it became clear that Meyer didn't trust his passing game to do anything, MSU shut Hyde down again.
I think the way to attack MSU's defense is to go 3 or 4 wide and force their safeties into coverage. They were talking in the first quarter last night how the safeties play soft zone while the corners play tight coverage. If you can attack that, you can back the pressure off, and run the ball. Michigan and Stanford aren't really built for that kind of attack right now.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:10 AM ^
MSU never shut Hyde down. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me but in the second half he averaged something like 8 yards a carry. He was getting stronger as the game went on but Ohio simply stopped calling his number. Urban Meyer tried to get cute when he could have just ground away a victory.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:24 AM ^
After OSU took the lead, Hyde rushed 4 times for 25 yards, half of that on his first carry. He rushed twice for 7 yards in the 4th quarter. Braxton didn't run the ball well either in the 4th.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:31 AM ^
Putting aside the issue of it being a tiny sample, does seven yards on two carries really constitute being "shut down"? You do that on 1st and 2nd down, and you've got a 3rd and 3.
I think a back as talented as Hyde should have gotten a few more carries than that in the 4th quarter of a close game. Miller, a smallish guy, carrying the ball on those critical short-yardage plays was a curious decision.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:51 AM ^
Meyer's bread and butter play is inside zone read, and when you run zone read it's the defense that decides who carries the ball. If they want Miller to keep, they can force him to keep.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:29 AM ^
...were run run pass punt and run run run run turnover on downs. Then, down two scores with two minutes to play, they understandably tried to throw.
Four of the six runs were Braxton instead of Hyde, but when you're running a lot of zone read you don't have full control over which guy gets the carry. It certainly doesn't look like Meyer "getting cute", in any case. They were trying to run, MSU stuffed it.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^
You can be "cute" and still keep it on the ground. Miller's always been a little feast or famine in the run game - he can bust out a 40-yard run on a broken play, but is liable to get dropped for a loss because he's not that physical of a runner.
Hyde had something like two carries all year that lost yardage. His YAC this year is incredible. He is quite probably the best inside runner in the country. Against a team like MSU, getting him two carries in the fourth quarter is astonishing.
January 2nd, 2014 at 1:18 PM ^
The fact that ND beat MSU, in and of itself, does not prove that their gameplan was impeccable and a model for everyone to copy. Here's the box score of that game:
http://espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=332640087
As you can see, ND managed all of 220 yards of offense and gained 14 first downs (several via penalty). Rees completed less than half his attempts and averaged a paltry 4.2 per attempt.
In retrospect, the real story of that game was that they held MSU to 13 points, something that none of Michigan, Nebraska, OSU or Stanford was able to do. The latter three teams would have beaten MSU if they'd held them to that.
January 2nd, 2014 at 1:52 PM ^
Of course, Connor Cook isn't the player he was now back when they played Notre Dame. On some teams, young players get better as the season rolls on.
Not to mention, ND benefited from a handful of pretty bad PI calls.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:30 AM ^
I agree. I was amazed that Shaw kept running up the middle with little success. That 4th down call was terrible! MSU did get a little lucky with the calls but they still deserved the win.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:34 AM ^
Maaaaaannnn, you must be kidding. Wonka you crazy mother fucka!!
Only way to beat MSU is over the top? Damn, you could be a defensive coordinator or some shit at the NFL level with knowledge like THAT homie!!!
Shiiiiiiitttt - only game MSU lost all year was to ND - when their offensive only scored 13 points and Rees threw for 142 yards!!
You make it sound so easy, Wonka. It ain't. I park my Range Rover on your lawn, smash your Carolla. Ya bish!
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:44 AM ^
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:48 AM ^
Yes, I have met Aquaman, I have hung out with Aquaman, but the only thing I have in common with Aquaman is my love of the sea.
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:29 AM ^
So you created your sparkling new account just so you could uncork this argle-bargle complete with a misspelling of one of your cars. Excellent way to kick off 2014.
January 2nd, 2014 at 1:26 PM ^
Well, Don - like my auntie used to say - if you knows how to correctly spell the name of the cheap car you needs to get your paper up.
January 2nd, 2014 at 2:55 PM ^
Stanford was also fortunate at times. The Langford fumble - that could have happened to any RB. They had no answer for MSU on that drive.
Stupid inexperience pressure pass by Cook directly results in 7 pts the other way. No luck with the pressure, but the panic floater pass to the OL was incredibly lucky for Stanford.
Overall, Stanford and MSU looked about equal on O, but MSU has a much better D. Score didn't reflect that - should have been more lopsided.
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:22 AM ^
Man, what game were you watching? Give credit where it is due, MSU played a great game. Stanford threw over the top a few times, completed a long one at first, missed a couple and had one intercepted. Stanford couldn't do anything offensively in the second half. You could as easily argue that if MSU doesn't fumble when it looked as if it was about to score, then its MSU in a rout. It was a good game, breaks did not decide it, MSU was the better team.
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:26 AM ^
went complete Al Borges play-calling in the 2nd half and easily could have beaten Sparty...they were stupid and stubborn much like Borges and it cost them the game...hats off to MSU, they played really good in the 2nd half and zero'd in on the terrible offensive game that Stanford thought would work...maybe they could have watched the UM/MSU game to see how running up the middle against Sparty's D works out
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:55 AM ^
That was the same thought I had. Gaffney had average over 5 yards per rush and was in the 3's agains MSU. It seemed that in the 4th quarter, when they really needed first downs, they were predictable.
You have to hand it to MSU, their second half D was very impressive.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:56 AM ^
Other than the 47 yard carry, Gaffney averaged ~2ypc. Obvsly you can't exclude the long carry, but he basically got nothing all night except for 1 play.
Sparty's defense was excellent, and Stanford played to tendency all night, which made it that much easier for MSU.
January 2nd, 2014 at 10:26 AM ^
I didn't care at all for the Stanford's playcalling. Maybe they just didn't have the personnel to be creative but I thought that much of their plays made it easy on MSU's D.