Space Coyote

September 19th, 2014 at 8:35 AM ^

But Neuheisel is still correct. The reason why: the gap integrity he's speaking of was the reason for MSU's leverage on that play. Their leverage put the CB inside the receiver in a "lock" formation, which allowed him to be rubbed off on the wheel by the post. The coverage fully accounted for everything no problem, but the gaps the defense was responsible for left them susceptible.

MSU here has to do better at the CB position to stay tight to their man off the LOS. Reduce the cushion between man to man and force that player closer to the sideline. What that does is help squeeze out that gap they aren't covering, it makes it nearly impossible for the post receiver to pick the CB without picking his man, and it forces the wheel into the sideline.

This is why I claimed in a few threads that MSU didn't get tempo'd. They lined up correctly according to their adjustments each time. But Oregon was exploiting schematic and technique flaws they saw from MSU. It was adjustments by Oregon that caused the game to drastically switch, much more than it was tempo.

Class of 1817

September 19th, 2014 at 12:37 PM ^

How does this coverage work effectively?

It looks like the CB just gets stuck out there between two defenders, letting the QB play hi-lo essentially.

Shouldn't that FS be moving into cover 2, or both safties shift over their responsibilities by a quarter...? It doesn't look like either one of those were in the scheme...making this just a matter of freezing that corner every time just long enough to get a release downfield. Unless I'm missing something here...

So, yes, this is what happened, but it seems...pretty simple, no? As well as a fairly large risk by Sparty when they're running 3 receivers out to that side. Obviously a good adjustment by Oregon, great read by Mariota, but won't that be there every time if these guys are sticking to their assignments?

(...he says hoping that Nuss would see this and Devin could make the read...)

Space Coyote

September 19th, 2014 at 2:01 PM ^

If you read my football fundamentals Cover 1 it's what I called "Bunch In/Out"

Essentially, the CB lined up over #2 has #2 wherever he goes. The CB lined up over #1 has first receiver that declares outside (this is why he's playing off and watching through the #3 receiver) or the second inside. The safety has first that declares inside or second outside declared receiver (besides #2, who is locked with the CB). 

When the #3 receiver runs his bubble route, he declares himself as the first outside. This then declares the coverage. The CB outside takes bubble, the CB over #2 is locked on his WR, and the safety takes the last guy, the one that is declaring his route inside.

Class of 1817

September 19th, 2014 at 4:12 PM ^

This is great stuff.

So basically what you're saying there, and above as well, I think, is that if the D is gonna press, and the CB jams #2, or can somehow prevent him from getting a free release, this play is completely different.

Something interesting to look for as the season goes on, even considering this was a Sparty adjustment.

Space Coyote

September 19th, 2014 at 8:33 AM ^

Was an adjustment to their base defense already. Typically they do not slide the far CB to the other side of the field, except on a few instance, typically obvious passing downs. But against Oregon, they did this every time vs the Closed 3x1 set. It was an adjustment to try to better match speed with speed, but MSU struggled in post-snap communication, eye discipline, and who to pass off.

alum96

September 18th, 2014 at 10:34 PM ^

Narduzzi says tonight Oregon is pretty good but he wants a rematch and MSU would win that rematch.  Dantonio has said as much the week after the game.  Cumong man - it was pure luck! Just ask MSU coaches.   Amazing how whiny those dudes are - I expected neither the HC or coordinator to come out and say we'd win a rematch out in public.  You say that behind closed doors maybe but at this point it sounds like sore losers.

“They’re a good football team, but they’re no better than us,” Narduzzi said. “We’d like to play them the next day and probably have a different result.”

http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2014/09/michigan_states_pat_nar…

B1G_Fan

September 19th, 2014 at 1:34 AM ^

 Nebraska is a possibility, depends on what Nebraska team shows up. OSU is a mediocre team this and I'd love for the Wolverines to kick their butts in their house but PSU? I watched them play twice this year and they aren't very good either. Hackleburg has his moments but he looks like a good sophmore QB but he is far from great. Not saying he cant be, but he isn't right now.

Leonhall

September 19th, 2014 at 6:59 AM ^

Ha, we'd better get a helluva lot better soon. At the beginning of the year I thought we had a chance, but I'm beginning to believe that as long as Devin is our qb, we aren't winning against anybody on the road who has a pulse. Msu will blitz the crap out of him again, he just plays too hesitant and scared to beat them. Not happening this year, we will start beating them next season....



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Danny Bonaduce

September 19th, 2014 at 8:13 AM ^

It is hard to disagree with everything you said but I really am tired of hearing Michigan fans say that we have no chance of beating MSU this year.  Will it take a near perfect game?  Yes.  Does recent history suggest Michigan does not have a great chance of beating a good team on the road?  Yes.  MSU is not nearly as good as last year, particularly on defense and rushing offense.  I am not saying Michigan will win but to say there is no chance is, well, dissapointing to hear from so many Michigan fans.  

Voltron is Handsome

September 19th, 2014 at 10:20 AM ^

@alum96

For the record, Mike Hart pretty much said, after their loss in 2006 to OSU, that they would beat them in a rematch on a neutral field. I believe his exact quote was, "I guarantee it would be a different game." To me, he inferred that Michigan would have won in a rematch.

alum96

September 19th, 2014 at 11:27 AM ^

I don't recall Mike Hart coaching or being a coordinator.  Players are players - I get when they say something like that.  I said in my comment it comes off poorly when coaches say things like this.  Just like Dantonio should not have demeaned Hart's height etc.

Leonhall

September 18th, 2014 at 10:42 PM ^

They played them tough for 3 quarters, Oregon adjusted quicker. Those two may be dicks but they are pretty damn good coaches and I wouldn't be surprised if they did beat them the next time.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Cold War

September 19th, 2014 at 6:18 AM ^

They're a dirty team.

I won't back off of that. And if anyone thinks I say that because of their recent success, note I do not accuse Ohio of being dirty, and have beaten us like 12 of the last 14.

There were many instances of guys who clearly didn't have to hit a guy who was down but they got there just a second late. They do it so consistently (far more so against us) it doesn't look unusual and doesn't get called. Devin by far took the most shots like this last year.

I don't want to see us play that way. I don't know if we'd get away with it, either. If we win this year it will be in spite of it. Not sure I have an answer.

In reply to by You Only Live Twice

Cold War

September 19th, 2014 at 5:17 PM ^

That was in 2011 they got in a little hot water for that. I didn't hear a lot about it after last year's game.

MH20

September 19th, 2014 at 9:06 AM ^

Stop being a troll, phork.

And for the record I didn't mind Lewan mixing it up against Sparty last season.  Apparently, you forgot the 2011 game where William Gholston attempted to twist Denard's head off, arm-barred Lewan, and later punched him under the chin.  If anyone is allowed to be a litlte pissed off when it comes to MSU, it's Taylor Lewan.