Question for those who have watched MSU this year: have they looked bored?

Bored?  No.  Bad?  Yes.

 

They have been outplayed a lot of the time.  Special teams are awful. Secondary is depleted and like a sieve.  Defense misses Narduzzi. Cook has been decent, but he doesn't seem to get the respect from the team that a 5th year Senior should get--and their offensive play calling hasn't been terribly exciting.  Price was good when healthy.  Their stable of backs look decent. They have had very few turnovers this season.  Oh, and their coach is still an ass.

 

 

I don't think bored is right.  Teams are different from year to year.  They more likely just aren't as good.  It happens.

injuries, the loss of Narduzzi, losses to graduation

yes these

their secondary is thin same with the OL

So they have A-level QB, B receivers, B DL, C OL, D secondary

I really think we will see a lot of sacks on Cook and a lot of long ball success

I don't know about bored. 

They ran out to some pretty big leads (20+) in 3 of their games.

WMU they were up 20 at half time and up 24 in the third quarter

AFA they were up by 28 points in the 3rd quarter before giving up 14 points to end the game.

Purdue they were up by 21 points at half time

Against Oregon they were up by 10 twice. Both times in the 3rd and 4th quarter

Against CMU they were only up by 7 going into the 4th quarter but scored two TDs in the final quarter to win it by 20

Against Rutgers they were down 4 at halftime but built up a 10 point lead in the third quarter before allowing rutgers back in it and requiring a game winning drive with 4 minutes left.

 

The clearly have the ability to be a dominant team but I don't think they have played a full 60 minutes of their best football.  Calling it bored I don't know but I'm worried that playing UM might be the kick in the pants MSU needs to get thier act together.  If they play at 100% for a full 60 minutes this game will be closer than anticipated.

I think the Rutgers performance was likely due to some shock at the UM score and resulting focus issues.

They're not bored just bad. They look like us in 2013 when we had a bunch of crappy teams on our schedule that we escaped against for the first half of the year.

Good talent, staff develops that talent, but for three years now they have gone relatively uninjured.  That worm has turned, and they are both without some of the high-end talent in the seconary that graduated, and playing depth guys all over.  I don't think they are bored at all; just struggling.  At 6-0 with those struggles, they ought to feel pretty good.  I do not think they will feel that good Saturday evening.

bored as hell against Purdue, led 21-0.  

 

Howeva'  they are not as big, fast or physical on defense as they have been in recent years.  They have been susceptable to cut back runs against the pursuit with their safeties being late.  Coverage wise, they're still good except it seems like you can get behind and in front of them more than before, not seeing the great speed they had a couple years ago.

 

Offense, well the OL injuries have taken their toll.  They still run hard and pound out yards but if they really needed a long drive and couldn't throw the ball I'm not sure they would get very far just running the ball.  What makes this team go is their collection of excellent WR's.  They don't drop balls and catch everything thrown at them.  Connor Cook is at least two steps better than any QB we've faced.  The real question is if we can get to him.  He's not a great thrower under presure like most QB's but he's much more likely to put one on the money in those tight windows than anyone we've played so far.

Special teams is a disaster waiting to happen against what appears to be a very good Michigan special teams unit.  Kick coverages have been mediocre at best

 

I expect State to play really well and we'll get their best shot, but for the first time in a couple years I see a few places where Michigan probably has an advantage and can take advantage.

 

won't be anything like the last 3 weeks.

MSU plays to the level of the competitor for some odd reason.  But Dantonio has a body of work that shows he knows how to win.  While I'm cautiously optimistic about winning I think Sparty is going to be a helluva competitor.

I don't think it's boredom or the fact that they're bad, they just have no depth. Yeah, they're injured, but that's no excuse. If we have a couple of guys in our secondary go down, yeah it's going to hurt us, but we're not going to become completely porous. Schematically, we have the guys who are versatile enough to compensate. They have good starters but not much behind them, and I think that's why they're struggling more this year. The depth of their Rose Bowl team was not tested.

I would say "hesitant," "cautious," "slow," "distracted," etc.

The defense just isn't the same without Narduzzi calling the plays, and the talent is really lacking in the secondary. On offense, the passing attack is quite good but the running game is in transition--something they haven't really dealt with for a while, having had the luxury of going from Baker to Bell to Langford (all now in the NFL). It isn't bad, per se, but it's just not up to their recent standards, and without that, the offense has a tendency to stall.

They look pretty good, as a whole. Just not "really good" like they have the past two years.

I'm guessing we beat them and so does OSU. The rest of their schedule is a cakewalk, unless Nebraska manages to un-Riley themselves in that game. So finishing 10-2 (6-2) seems likely, with 9-3 (5-3) less likely but not unimaginable. 

Watched WMU (w/a really good QB) have some surprising success against Sparty's defense.  Thought it was just opening game rust.  Looking now over the season, I wonder if two things are happening;

1) Offenses are figuring out how to attack the Sparty D, and

2) With Narduzzi gone, the Sparty D has stopped evolving (see #1).

They've played a soft schedule (somewhere between 80-90th in the nation) and they don't look good.  Their team stats, during the dark years in A2, were good on both sides of the ball (and great on D).  This year, their team stats range from mediocre on offense to bad on defense.  Given the soft schedule that looks even worse.

As for theories, I've got a tin hat one for you:
-They suffered (it seems, unless I'm mistaken) very few injuries during our dark years.  Their DC bolts and suddenly, they're plagued with injuries.  Maybe it was Narduzzi providing "supplements"; maybe they cycled off to avoid tests; maybe it's just a giant coincidence.  In any event, they're like a football version of Pudge Rodriguez.  Suddenly, so different.

How has Malik McDowell played this year? I remember seeing him shove an OLineman into the backfield on a play against Oregon and being afraid.  Should I be afraid of him?  Has he done anything since this singular play?  

It does feel like this year's MSU team is the type to play up or down to the level of it's competition. With the exception of thier last game, they had complete control of pretty much every game with the chance to blow it open, and just let the opposing team hang around.

 

That offense can make plays when it needs to. Feels like Cook is capable of doing what he did last week (350+) whenever they need him to.

 

There is no "on/off" switch for that defense, though. They've lost their most constant player of Defense before the season started (Davis), most athletic CB (Copeland), most experienced DB (Williamson), and the player who was getting potential All-American hype has been a bust for them (Montae N.). And they don't recruit at an elite level, so the depth isn't there to overcome that type of shit.

 

The Narduzzi thing is overplayed, that defense fell off big time last year (they won because their offense averaged 45pts a game). Narduzzi is/was a great coach, but those Defense's were great because they unearthed some gems. They ran out of gems. It was going to happen eventually...

 

Biggest concern is: MSU's biggest weakness is in that horrible secondary. They can be beat deep. The biggest flaw in Ruddock's play so far? Exactly. He'll have the exact same players breaking free in the secondary as he did in the Utah game. He has to make those plays for UM to win.

As someone who's watched every minute of every game: Yes they have looked bored at times. No that's not the reason these games have been close.

MSU has run out be good leads in every game except for Rutgers, and from that point has just tried to end the game as quickly as possible. Against Purdue it made some sense. We were down to our center playing RT, didn't want to have many passing situations where Cook could be killed. Against other teams it didn't make much sense.

Our play calling seems to be based on the fact that our defense can hold a lead, which so far hasn't been the case. Injuries and youth have contribued to a bad defensive backfield and giving up points. ST has put us in a hole a few times.

I'm looking for MSU to attack for a full 4 quarters like it does in the first 25 minutes of games. It had to against Rutgers, and we ended up with 31 points and left a few points on the field. Against Michigan we can't afford to settle because we're not going to be able to get up 21 points in the first 4 drives of the game.

than saying bored. This team responds to the challenge their opponent presents.

Because they have a senior quarterback who has an incredible winning record, this team possesses an incredible confidence about itself. But at times that confidence can lead to complacency. This and the fact that it has had injuries at key posiitons has led, I believe, to lesser efficiency in their offensive and defensive game.

What I have also noticed is that their coach looks more pained than usual when watching his team perform, as if his anxiety about their success is greater because there is a thinner line for failure to reach the goals he and his team have set. The Spartans are formidable challenge for any team, especially Michigan.

But for the first time since the Carr years, Michigan has the coaching answer to supress the motivational hate that drives the Spartan cause against the Wolverines. Michigan isn't bad-mouthing the program; it's praising it. It's left the rivalry motivation for Dantonio to stir up, using his patented Rodney Dangerfield card: We get no respect from the media and or the football pundits, who lately have been singing the praises of Michigan without any word from Harbaugh suggesting anything other than a lunch pail perspective: We've won some games, good for us, we got another this week, we're getting ready for it. That is all. See ya.

Dantonio is left to square dance with music from that old time religion chorus of little brother where art thou. See ya Saturday, We'll be ready -- to kick your Spartan ass.

They were weakening on defense last year, but they didn't play a whole lot of teams who were any good to really exploit it, and they still had a first-down DB and an all-conference safety.  Now, though, they have a pretty bad secondary (at least compared to past years) even when guys like Hicks and Williamson weren't hurt, and they aren't consistently getting enough pressure with their front 7 to cover that up.  I think their defensive line is still pretty good, but the LBs seem a step off from last year (Davis was a big loss regardless of what anyone says), so guys are getting to the second level and not getting stopped immediately, and then said secondary has to make tackles.  They aren't getting blown off the ball or anything, but MAC teams are either beating their yardage or nearly doing so on the regular.

As for the offense, it's pretty good, though their running game has struggled even when the OL was healthy.  Scott and London are good backs (Scott is better), but they are very boom-or-bust; like, London had a 60+ TD run against Oregon and then 40-ish yards on the other 17 carries.  Burdbridge is a very good receiver though I also think he's played the easier corners on their schedule.  Price is a good TE, but he's been hurt and who knows.  Cook is a very good QB until he gets some pressure, then he can struggle (which is true for most QBs).  He played better against Rutgers and their pressure, but he also was bailed out by some nice grabs by his receivers.  With better coverage, some of those don't happen.  He is very accurate, though, on longer throws, and can move.  He does feel like a slightly better Cousins with a better arm, so he can kill you or he can be a bit too cowboy and try to muscle a ball in there when he shouldn't.  

In general, I do think they play a bit down to their competition due to disinterest, but they also REALLY cared about Oregon and nearly blew that game to a mediocre outfit.  They have had an easy schedule thus far (their game against Rutgers was the first time they left the state this year) and haven't looked all that good doing it.  They're probably still the 2nd/3rd best team in the conference depending on this weekend's results, but don't less MSU fans telling you this was always a "rebuilding year" fool you - they were poised to be better than they look thus far.

They played well on Defense last year, but not that good. They were not elite last year. They regressed further this year due to graduation and injuries. Their main issue is that they don't have the talented depth that other elite teams have. I would not say that they are bored. I think they were over confident in their abilities in each of those games that they were up. I personally believe it is because of lack of talented depth or talent that is not developed yet. Rutgers game was different. They did not look like a good team because their starters on offense were not full strength and they don't have good second stringers. But I want to point out that we have injuries, players left the program, a borrowed QB, graduation, departure to NFL. A lot of them are key starters that could have played solid minutes as starters. So, I don't buy into the idea that they are not great because of injuries. I think they are not great because they have injuries and not enough talented depth. We are better because we have better depth.

he has a "chip" on his shoulder

ha. ha. ha.

There is some beautiful feelingsball in this thread.

My take: MSU hasn't looked very good because they aren't very good.  No psychoanalysis needed.  Their run game is mediocre, their pass defense is bad, and their special teams are bad.  Meanwhile their strengths (pass offense and rush defense) aren't nearly as much so as last year.  They're an 8-4-level team that has played a terrible schedule to date.  They will be exposed.