Questions about MSU defense

Submitted by massblue on

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).

 

riverrat

January 2nd, 2014 at 9:28 AM ^

It looked to me as if the MSU secondary played more zone than I had previously thought they did - the interception by Waynes was either an amazing read/reaction or a zone...

 

 

The Baughz

January 2nd, 2014 at 9:44 AM ^

Im order to have 8+ guys in the box, you must have outstanding cover guys in the secondary. Which MSU has. They also get pressure which is obviously huge. Notice how our DBs play way off? Thats because our front doesnt get pressure and the DBs arent great in coverage. Our defense is not good. It's not terrible, but it certainly is not where it should be. Hopefully the dline improves a ton by next season.

Space Coyote

January 2nd, 2014 at 9:42 AM ^

If you do want to learn more about MSU's defense, I've written quite a bit on it:

LINK

In summary, they are almost exclusively a cover 4 defense, though in passing situations they'll run a lot of cover 3 behind their blitz package. Going by memory, MSU ran the Bear defense approximately one times this season (the last stop looked like it may have been a bear variant, but was more just a GL formation than anything), so no, they aren't a bear defense. They run a 4-3 Over with Cover 4 behind it.

For clarification, here's what a Bear defense looks like:

Note that it doesn't have to be the Strong Safety and SAM over the TE side, it can be two LBs over the TE, it can be a LB over the guards and SS at LB level, etc, this is just a basic Bear defense (that can also shade Over and Under).

The 4-3 Over looks like this (sorry for wonky picture, best I could find quickly):

4-3 Over is very standard for a 4-3 as it gives pretty clean reads for the LBs in their bubble and fairly nice ability to flow. In the link above, you'll find a post that goes into a lot more about the 4-3 Over and how MSU adjusts within it and what the advantages are.

The Bear defense relies on essentially covering every OL so that the LBs are absolutely clean to make a play. Notice how basically every gap is filled on the LOS. The 4-3 Over is a bit more versatile (you won't see many Bear defenses today because it can be exposed against the pass) and is more about LBs reading, though MSU doesn't really harp as much on leverage player, spill player, etc, as strictly run fills (if you went to a coaching clinic with Narduzzi, you'd hear him talk about this in more detail).

Now, MSU rarely actually puts 8 in the box (though they'll have essentially 8 in the box against a nub formation typically, as the CB checks into a cover 2 and plays the leverage defender). What they play is a quasi-9 man box, because the safeties tend to play flatter and tighter to the LOS at about 7 yards (Stanford) to 9 yards (traditionally). Their safeties essentially read the number 2 or the EMOL to tip run/pass and react accordingly. Front side safety has alley support, backside safety fits backside spill to backside leverage so LBs can flow off of first read. This is why most teams, including Stanford, OSU, and Michigan, attempted to attack the safeties over the middle with the #2 receiver off of PA. They were essentially trying to get the safeties in a bind for run/pass responsibility. But for the most part that takes some time because the routes need to develop over the top, so you need protection.

Hope this helped.

Kilgore Trout

January 2nd, 2014 at 9:48 AM ^

Do you think Michigan's corners are not physically able to play like this? It seems like we have consistently had smaller corners, so maybe that is part of it. From a risk reward standpoint, what do you think the breaking point is to run this type of defense. In other words, how many long passes can you give up and still come out ahead by shutting everything else down?

Space Coyote

January 2nd, 2014 at 9:56 AM ^

I don't think from an athletic standpoint that Michigan couldn't run it, though I don't think Michigan's players are as designed for the scheme as MSU's. The thing with MSU is it's pretty much what they run and that's it (outside of several downs) where as Michigan is much, much more multiple.

There are strengths and weaknesses to both philosophies, of course. If MSU doesn't have a Dennard type guy and has an average player in the secondary, that guy can and will be easily picked on. It's a scheme that takes time to develop and for players to learn the ins and outs of it, that is why MSU fans wanted Narduzzi gone in year 3, because the players still weren't up to playing the scheme, either they didn't fit or they still hadn't learned all the nuances of it. So it takes time to implement and frankly takes getting the right players for the system to play it well.

Froma risk/reward standpoint, it's really about philosophy. I think Narduzzi says something like 15% deep completions is the accepted number. That's a pretty low number, but that's their stated goal/or breaking point. That seems about right to me as well. But that also assumes you are taking away the short stuff and stopping the run. If you're average at the other stuff and giving up that percentage, you're defense is failing.

FormerlyBigBlue71

January 2nd, 2014 at 9:38 AM ^

1.  No, it is not a version of the 46 bear defense by alignment. 

2.  You do not need Jabrill Peppers type corners to be succesful.  You just need to identify under the radar kids who can run and are big and physical.(not the midgets Michigan has recruited)

3.  It is scheme and technique that allow them to play at a high level.  Scheme-wise it is elite.  It is crazy that it has not caught on more throughout the college game.  The only way to take advantage of it is by hitting deep balls and those are even extremely hard to hit becasue of the constant pressure.  On running downs both inside linebackers are blitzed making them essentially defensive lineman,building a wall at the line of scrimmage. The safeties are playing extremely close to the line of scrimmage effectively making them the linebackers to clean up any thing that breaks through.  The key to the scheme is playing your corners on bump and run coverage, effectively making it so there is not enough space for a short passing game and not enough time to execute a long ball passing game.

Space Coyote

January 2nd, 2014 at 10:05 AM ^

It isn't really scheme elite, it's another scheme that MSU runs nearly exclusively. Other schemes can work just as well by making similar adjustments within it. Alabama doesn't really run a ton of Cover 4, in fact, they are very multiple in nature, but they run a lot more zone matching and single high schemes. Iowa was always a Cover 2 team. I can list a number of teams that do it differently.

It's very sound scheme wise, but if you aren't very good at it, if you aren't very good at run fills, if your DL gets beat at the point of attack, etc, then you lose your third level players because the safeties are so aggressive. It takes a lot of work and patience to learn the system correctly and execute it correctly. Those safeties filling the alley, if they're beat, then it turns into a big play because there is no 3rd level defender. Quick hitters like Indiana had leaves the defense in the dust if it isn't fundamentally sound.

In the pass game, it also tends to leave the short/intermediate out from the #2 open. Most teams aren't patient enough to take that, and MSU is one of the few teams this year to really hold it down. In the past they've had more issues with it, but this year they could do more with their safeties over the #2 than even they have in the past, making the defense a little bit harder.

Also, if you get protection, you can get torn up in the underneath zones, which is why Dileo had a great game against MSU 2-years ago when MSU couldn't get pressure on the QB. The LBs are tasked with covering a lot of area and also need to be run oriented. So it's not an infallible defensive scheme, it's just run very well at MSU right now. It's a good scheme, I like it a lot, don't get me wrong, but it's not something more teams can just pick up and run like MSU does.

As far as what you're saying about the ILBs, that's mostly false. Outside of a BCB overload blitz and the double A-gap blitz, MSU rarely blitzes. They just attack on first read rather than play read and react because the way they play their safeties allows the LBs to be very instinctive rather than playing certain support types (spill, leverage, etc). They just basically read clear/cloudy and attack the football, but they don't blitz making them DL.

Space Coyote

January 2nd, 2014 at 10:49 AM ^

Well, lots of different types of screens, so let's try to go through them. FWIW, before we start, MSU was very good against screens this year.

Bubble screens - these tend to be difficult because of the way MSU adjusted their cover 4, to pressing on the outside, especially to the field. By pressing and allowing them to press straight up (read: maintain the ability to pop outside and get leverage) along with how the OLBs and Safeties react to any slot receiver make that a more difficult proposition. Some teams had some success bubbling to the #3, but it's still difficult, and in certain situations where the CB lost leverage some teams got about 5 yards, but with the quick flow based off of quick reads, the bubble is difficult.

Tunnel screens - These can have success, but they require you to win over the top so that the CBs respect the initial vertical release first. Otherwise they just stick to the #1 receiver and that makes it difficult to get enough separation from him to get cleanly into the tunnel area. Combine that with the safety reacting quickly down field, it's difficult for the OL to get out and fill in alley support.

Slow screens - Again, it comes down to safety support and quick reads by LBs. Because the LBs don't often blitz, they are able to read and pick up RBs leaking out of the backfield. They are well schooled in how to defend it and have a good understanding of how each position is supposed to read it.

Throwback screens - Should work to some degree. Again, MSU is well schools in reading screens anyway, but with how they flow, throwbacks can be effective. A key issue though is MSU's length on the DL. You'll notice that they do have a lot of length at the DE and especially DT position, this slows down the play and allows the defense to react. The DL is also pretty good at feeling the release.

Flare screens - This is one of the ways a lot of teams found at least some limited success against MSU, because it gets to the edge quickly but still allows the #2 to release vertical to hold the safety. That means it puts the OLB immediately on the edge with a RB in space. You saw quite a few teams run that. MSU is still sound fundamentally and you'll see their DEs do a good job breaking off the pass rush and the rest of their team flow to the football if the OLB can slow the RB down, but that's a way several teams picked up good yards against them. Just can't run it too often otherwise those DEs and OLB will start quickly jumping it, and because it's a quick screen that needs to be thrown more on a line, if it's read immediately it's a very dangerous throw that both will have a clean run at the ball carrier, if not the ball itself.

mgobaran

January 2nd, 2014 at 9:40 AM ^

The Chicago Bears defense was a cover two scheme (at least that is what every interview I have ever heard from Brian Urlacher said). MSU's main defense is Cover 4. 

So I wouldn't say they are the same. Probably share some same aspects though.

And yes. Even in college your DBs need to be pretty damned good to be left on an island.

reshp1

January 2nd, 2014 at 9:46 AM ^

They play very aggressively at the line of scrimmage. They'll load up and stop the run and send extra guys to get pressure. The CBs play tight to the line to disrupt timing and prevent quick passes, but also have the speed to keep up deep, but the key to their defense is to prevent deep passes by getting to the quarterback before the route can develop.

I don't think it's purely the system that makes them successful, they have a legitimately talented roster that allows them to play it as aggressively as they do. That said, Narduzzi does as good of a job as anyone making sure everyone is on the same page and ready for every offense they face, and state does a great job finding and developing players to fit their system.

Space Coyote

January 2nd, 2014 at 9:49 AM ^

It does require good, sound CB play because the CBs will tend to be on an island. But what it doesn't require is the CBs to learn a lot of different techniques. They have their press technique they starts off with an even leverage (meaning they don't try to force inside or outside at the LOS, they just try to wall off and force the WR to release anywhere but directly up field, plus the CB needs to jump outside on any bubble and has immediate inside help) and essentially rotates to a man coverage once the WR gets vertical (though this changes depending on the type of cover 4 call and if the CB will get safety help inside, if they're in MEG or MOD coverage, etc).

So what MSU has done is basically taught their CBs the hardest technique, but not much else. They do have very good athletes on the outside, don't let recruiting ranking fool you. These guys were very good athletes coming in, they were just very raw (or in the case of Dennard, he just didn't camp and went to a small school in Georgia that MSU didn't even know about until they were recruiting Mumphry and saw Dennard on tape). It's a fairly simple scheme though, in the sense that they aren't asked to do a whole lot of different things, but it does tend to leave them vulnerable over the top. And if teams get protection and they don't have as good of CBs as Dennard (Waynes is good too, but is vulnerable to getting beat once or twice a game), they will give up big chunk plays. But Dennard essentially shutting off half the field helped them significantly.

Instinctive safeties that make quick and fundamentally sound reads are required as well, otherwise they will really struggle when put in the run/pass bind

bighouse22

January 2nd, 2014 at 10:36 AM ^

I agree with you that the stars don't really matter because MSU does a great job of talent evaluation for their system.  Dennard was a 2 star WR and they recognized his ability and switched him to DB.  The same thing this year with Langford who came in as a DB and they moved him to RB.

maize-blue

January 2nd, 2014 at 9:54 AM ^

MSU doesn't really do anything special on Defense, they are just super aggressive. They have a pretty good seconday group that can keep up with recievers. They load the box and if your passing game is not up to snuff then you're fuc&%$. They also have a good number of seniors.

The annoucers kept saying that MSU begs the oppenents to throw over them. Stanford was unable to except for a couple of times, not enough for MSU to soften up.

I was unimpressed by Stanford's play calling and QB. They (Stanford) never really did anything all game to make MSU adjust their D. They tried a few deep balls but the rest of the play calling fell right into Sparty's hands. I knew before the ball was snapped on the 4th and 1 at the end of the game that it would never work.

Space Coyote

January 2nd, 2014 at 9:57 AM ^

The Seattle Seahawks run a very similar scheme to MSU. It takes on another level of difficulty in the NFL though as your CBs can no longer hand fight after 5 yards, which MSU utilizes to their advantage to get back in phase and disrupt timing on deeper throws.

bronxblue

January 2nd, 2014 at 10:01 AM ^

This feels like an unnecessary thread, since these questions could have been asked in any of the hundreds of other posts about MSU.

But I'll bite:

1)  I'm not sure if it is a Ryan defense, but they do play their safeties particularly close to the line, which you can do if you have really great corners who can stay with receivers without help over the top.  That is probably a part of the Bears defensive scheme, but I'm no expert.

2).  Again, having great corners helps.  Also, they haven't played particularly great WRs.

3)  Stanford does not have receivers like OSU and UM had, and it didn't help that when those receivers did get open they dropped the ball.  MSU is a great defense, but Stanford played right into their strengths (slow-developing running plays, limited speed outside).

CRISPed in the DIAG

January 2nd, 2014 at 10:01 AM ^

IIRC, the '85 Bears CB's were conventionally thought of as the 'weak' part of their defense.  Their only loss was to the Dolphins and Marino/Duper/Clayton in a classic MNF.  I could be wrong, but I remember the Dolphins also breaking some counters on the ground for good yardage in the first half.  

Louie C

January 2nd, 2014 at 10:46 AM ^

I actually have that game on VHS. My mom taped it for the old man because he was a 2nd shifter but also commuted an hour to work, so he would have missed most of the game by the time he got home.

Every couple of years or so, I go back and watch it. It's funny seeing the retro commercials and 80's sitcoms and cartoons that are on that tape as well.

heisenberg991

January 2nd, 2014 at 10:07 AM ^

Narduzzi bases his defense on the Miami of Florida glory day defenses. Google Narduzzi and Miami of Florida and there is an article about how he watched them and wanted a similar defense.

MI Expat NY

January 2nd, 2014 at 10:15 AM ^

To answer your last two questions, I'd say they don't need elite DB play for their scheme.  They have to be good, but you don't need to be elite if your run defense is stout and you get pressure on the QB when they're forced to pass.  MSU's system is one giant gamble that their pressure, both on the QB and on the WR's near the line, will leave the offense unable to make the hard plays and take advantage when their DB's get beat.  MSU's DB's get beat and potential NFL QBs can and have certainly taken advantage.   

Currently, according to ESPN, there is one MSU secondary player seeing action in the NFL, and I don't think he's a starter.  They haven't been elite in the back end (Dennard is obviously a good player) and it's shown.  The only teams (with the exception of Nebraska) that have had success against MSU in this 4 year run have had the QB/WR combo to attack MSU through the air, or at least threaten them to keep MSU from fully attacking the run.  Think Notre Dame, Indiana, Wisconsin with Wilson, Georgia in a bowl game, Alabama in a bowl game.   MSU has a great defense.  They've also been lucky that the Big Ten has been brutally bad in QB and WR play these last few years.  

bighouse22

January 2nd, 2014 at 10:21 AM ^

I think your assessment is on the money.  The one thing that I would add is that intense pressure, especially in the college game often leads to turnovers and big plays by the defense. You can probably tell, I prefer the MSU style of defense because it is about imposing your will and causing the offense to adjust to you.  I always think it is a mistake to allow a QB on any level to feel comfortable in the pocket and get into a groove.  

bighouse22

January 2nd, 2014 at 10:16 AM ^

In my opinion, MSU has shown you don't need elite talent to run their defense, so I fall in the scheme camp.  With College QBs you can rattle them easier than seasoned professionals.  In my mind, what you need are physical corners that can come up to the line of scrimmage and get physical with the WRs.  It is about pressure and disrupting routes.  

If you make a college QB rush their throws they struggle to overcome it most of the time.  It is easier to get in their head.

FreddieMercuryHayes

January 2nd, 2014 at 10:25 AM ^

I feel that the core of the questions regarding MSU's D is 'why can't we do that?' But before we ask that, you have to remember that MSU is in year 7 of he same HC and DC. Obviously very good coaches and game planers, but if you'll remember, Naeduzzi was on the hot seat after year 3. The D was the main reason they had a losing record in the third year. It wasn't until year 4 that their D took the leap to good, and it wasn't until year 5 that it became elite.

MinWhisky

January 2nd, 2014 at 10:32 AM ^

it's Narduzzi and their DB coach.   They would get the same results with UofM's DBs, given some time to coach them up and teach them the basics of their defensive scheme.

tybert

January 2nd, 2014 at 11:00 AM ^

MSU is getting the reputation of being another Linebacker U, because their guys (LBs) are always in the action and tackles.

What I think is most impressive is that MSU's D-Line and coaching has learned the techniques to be able to stuff the run, get into the backfield, and CONTAIN the QB as well. This is all about STRENGTH and TECHNIQUE (S&T). Talent helps but only when it has the S&T behind it.

Comparing the Michigan D-Line from the KSU game to what I saw yesterday from MSU - our D-Line conveniently picked the wrong gap or got sealed off. Once MSU got over a shaky 1st quarter, Narduzzi's boys adjusted and stopped Stanford.

MSU's D last night reminded me of Michigan 1997, only Dennard is obviously not Woodson but still good enough.

LSAClassOf2000

January 2nd, 2014 at 11:02 AM ^

This diary is from last year, but MGoBlogger colin wrote a pretty good primer on the Michigan State defense in the days before our game against them using step-by-step screenshots from their then-recent experience playing Ohio State.

The link is - HERE - and while it discusses many of the things that Space Coyote has mentioned above, it shows at least one example of their run defense being beat with a breakdown of how exactly it was done. I found the images most helpful when reading the analysis. It's still pretty current, of course, because this is still exactly what they do.

tybert

January 2nd, 2014 at 11:07 AM ^

Our last quality D-Line was 2011, especially with Martin and RVB in the middle.

When those guys finished playing, where did they go to get ready for the NFL?

They went to Barwis, who had a business in nearby Plymouth. These guys had Brady's S&C coach for one year and probably could have relied on him for free, and went to Barwis instead.

MSU clearly has someone working with their D-Line to get off blocks and push back. 

For all the talk of Funk and Big Al, our S&C coach is getting off the hook too easily.

Firstbase

January 2nd, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^

...may have been raised, but their corners are talented enough to play "on an island" with tight coverage. That frees up their safeties to assist in run support. 

That may be the key, along with a decent front four.

Ron Utah

January 2nd, 2014 at 11:59 AM ^

Here are brief answers:

  1. No.  This is not a Bear defense, though it looks similar because of the amount of pressure and numbers in the box that MSU brings.  Actually, the way they play their safeties shallow, they can get nine in the box very quickly--the Bear had eight.
  2. Yes, but that depends on what you mean by "elite."  MSU's corners MUST be able to execute press coverage extremely well, and they must be able to turn and run well.  They are not elite at some other techniques and I don't think they'd be particularly effective in say, a Cover Two scheme.
  3. Some of both.  These guys are athletes, but I don't think they're all running 4.3 40s.  They are well-coached to disrupt routes and flip their hips; the idea is that if they can disrupt an early route and can flip their hips well, they can defend for the 3-4 seconds (max) before their D-Line or blitz arrives at the opposing QB.  You saw them get beat over the top against Stanford several times.  However, Stanford didn't always make the catch or the throw when the receivers were open.  If a team can do that, they can beat MSU.

Jimmyisgod

January 2nd, 2014 at 12:01 PM ^

The key to any good defense is depth and it's no different with the Spartan defense, I watched that game and saw players all game on defense whose numbers I didn't recognize, they go 2 and 3 deep at every position and they play them all.

I saw a DT, #87, make a great TFL, I wondered, who the heck is that?  Looking it up he's their 3rd string guy Brandon Clemens (A 4 star recruit incidentally).  They haved their 3rd string players mking great plays in the biggest game of the season.

We're developing some depth ourselves, think we're a couple years from having that type of depth, but we'll get there.  Really think we can have a top 10-15 defense in the country next season.  MSU next year?  Still think they'll have an elite defense, not top 5, but still top 10-15, I think they proved yesterday that they are capable of dealing with the loss of their good starters.  Harris and Elsworth played great for Bullough and they did not miss a beat.

I've said it before, we can't expect MSU or OSU to come back to the pack, it's up to us to improve and get to that level.