First draft:
I'll be editing and cleaning this up throughout the next hour:
PRE-SNAP READ: Michigan vs Michigan State
By Jim Comparoni
As was the case last week, there’s no need for me to go into Michigan’s style of play, pace and the background of their players. You probably are aware of all of that stuff.
I’ll approach this from an Issues & Answers style: the issues Michigan can or tries to present, and MSU’s ability to match-up.
There are some quality pre-game analyses out there on the internet, and I encourage you to seek them out. As usual, I won’t spend time ripping on opposing players. I’ll focus on how the opponent’s players and tendencies directly match-up against MSU’s strengths and weaknesses. I look to find strength vs weakness match-ups, which often lead to disproportionate results (as we saw with MSU’s center vs ASU’s nose guard in week one)
FINAL ANALYSIS FIRST
First, a sequel to the Skull Session podcast and things I’ve written earlier in the week:
I am backing off slightly about Shea Patterson’s problems throwing from the pocket. He had severe problems in the pocket against Notre Dame in the first half and against Northwestern.
I first noticed this when going over the Ole Miss vs LSU game from last year. He holds the ball too long in the pocket, doesn’t seem to process the information quickly, doesn’t appear to be scanning from one read to another very well. Even when he completes passes downfield from the pocket, as was the case on one occasion vs Northwestern and once vs Maryland, the ball comes out late and was under-thrown.
Rather than skimming quickly to a second and third read, he often seemed to make one long read and then go into scramble mode. He’s made plays doing this, so I can understand this as an exit default. But if you can press the pocket from the interior AND prevent him from escaping the pocket, then he and Michigan can have some problems with the pass game.
That was my thought heading into the rest of my film study. But I’ll back off from that a bit because he was good from the pocket against Maryland, aside from a first-half interception (tip drill category, caused partly by holding the ball too long and making a late throw). That being said, Maryland’s defensive line was not good. [I’m stunned that Maryland’s defensive stats (in the top four in the Big Ten) are as good as they are. I would expect those Maryland numbers to suffer in the coming weeks.]
**
Patterson is a pretty good, mobile, college quarterback. He’s at his best when reading on the run, to the left or right, whether by design or in scramble mode. Overall, he is not as good as the pre-season hype. Michigan State has seen terrific QBs in the recent past in terms of zip, quick reads and accuracy from the pocket, as well as being dangerous throwers on the move (Russell Wilson, Marcus Mariota). Patterson is a pretty good, solid college QB but doesn’t consistently have a knife at your throat like those guys.
QUARTERBACK MISTAKES PART I
I think there’s a good chance this game comes down to quarterback mistakes. Which team’s QB will make the mistakes? Which team can force the mistakes?
Does Michigan State have the goods to make things difficult and uncomfortable for Patterson? I think so.
Does Michigan have the goods to make things difficult and uncomfortable for Brian Lewerke? I think so.
And that’s where the game begins, after both teams try to probe the run game.
Michigan State should be able to stop the run better than any team Michigan has played. That’s not a guarantee, but it’s a good-to-strong likelihood.
Stop the run, and it harms the effectiveness of Michigan’s play-action pass game (which they love to use in a balanced, two-TE set. Not so much when both TEs are to one side of the formation).
Stop the run and it puts Michigan in unfavorable down-and-distance, which is something Penn State faced last week, something James Franklin says was a key to the game.
Put Michigan in second-and-long and they love to go to an empty, five-wide formation on second-and-long. I’m not sure whether this is a favorable matchup for Michigan State, but I don’t think it’s as bad as the stat sheet would indicate. I’ve said all year that MSU’s defensive backs and coverages are better than the stat sheet indicates, and that proved to be the case last week. Now it needs to prove this week’s tests.
Michigan’s receivers are similar as a whole to Penn State’s: pretty good, not great. UM uses the tight end far more, more than any team in the country. They do this in part because their wide receivers are unspectacular, said ESPN analyst, scout and sideline reporter Todd McShay.
SOME MICRO IN THIS MATCHUP I:
MSU’s defensive tackles are very good against the run and quite good in pressuring the QB pocket up the middle.
I haven’t seen terrible pass protection from UM this year the way we saw it last year (due to new o-line coach Ed Warriner, whose son is a freshman player at Michigan State).
For what it’s worth, Pro Football Focus rates Michigan’s center and left guard as its two worst pass protectors, giving them lower grades than Jordan Reid and Tyler Higby, to give you a familiar comparison.
I haven’t seen issues with the center and left guard, but that’s what PFF says, take it FWIW.
PFF rates right guard Michael Onwenu as Michigan’s best pass protector and worst run blocker. I kind of see it as the opposite.
So, once again, I find myself occasionally disagreeing with PFF.
Onwenu might miss run blocks when pulling, and that maybe damaged his grade with PFF, but I don’t see them pulling him across formation in recent games as much as they did earlier in the year. He is huge, wide but not terribly mobile, so he is more effective with pulls to the front side, rather than pulling from the back side. I think they have morphed things to fit his strengths and limitations.
I thought double-team run blocks with Onweno and right tackle Bushell-Beaty were good against Maryland, although Maryland stupidly didn’t go to a five-DL goal line defense in short yardage situations.
Anyway, when talking about UM’s o-line interior, Onwenu, Ruiz (the center) and Runyan (the left guard) have to match up with MSU’s strength, the defensive tackle tag team of Raequan Williams and Mike Panasiuk, in addition to MSU’s quality back-ups, Naquan Jones and Gerald Owens.
Can MSU’s d-tackles, and occasional LB blitzes, push the pocket, move Patterson off his point, get him into tuck and panic mode (and he will tuck and panic)? Yes they can, and I suspect they will with semi-regularity.
I haven’t seen Ruiz struggle in pass protection since the Notre Dame game. That was so long ago it’s barely worth mentioning.
PFF rates Ruiz as Michigan’s worst pass protector, giving him a grade that is better than Blake Bueter and Matt Allen, but worse than Tyler Higby.
I don’t know if I agree with all of that, but I think Ruiz, Onwenu and Runyan are about to face the best defensive tackles they’ve seen all year. But they’ve been hearing about MSU’s terrific run defense all week. That’s a bit of a change for this rivalry. Usually Michigan State players get their fuses lit by hearing about how great Michigan’s players are, and I think Michigan players have been negatively affected by back-slapping attaboys and rat poison in this series, over the years.
Michigan is dealing with a major dose of attaboys and “you guys are going to kill them” back slaps all week. Nick Saban would caution that “that stuff is rat poison. If someone is telling you that, they’re trying to set you up.”
Saban is stretching the truth on half of that, but he’s a smart guy. He’s correct in that too many attaboys can mess with a 20-year-old.
This time, Runyan, Ruiz and Onwenu might play with a chip on the shoulder. That could serve them well. Runyan grew up undertanding this rivalry. Onwenu is from Detroit. I don’t think those guys will get caught napping. It makes for a great football matchup.
Overall, I’ll go with MSU’s defensive interior to play strong and win often enough. They’ll help stop the run often enough. They’ll press the pocket often enough.
From there, can Michigan State keep Patterson hemmed in, prevent him from escaping the pocket? That’ll be one of the micro keys of the game, in my opinion.
Last week, Michigan State used more two-gapping along the defensive line in order to press the pocket against Trace McSorley without necessarily getting into gap-shooting chase mode against him. It worked well. McSorley had a substandard game. Meanwhile, Michigan State played more zone coverage than usual, which limited McSorley’s ability to tuck-and-run, an element with which he killed Ohio State.
MSU’s defensive coaches aren’t the dolts you’ve heard they were.
Patterson will throw from the pocket with bad footwork, off his back foot, when feeling a little pressure. I haven’t seen this cost him, in fact I’ve seen him make some good throws when doing this. But if you’re Michigan State, that’s dice you don’t mind rolling.
With the pocket being pressed, will Patterson have open receivers to throw to? Maybe, at times. But, like I said, he doesn’t read, process and find the openings all that well. I’d say that’s his main weakness as a QB, which is a pretty severe weakness against quality defenses in big games. Maybe he’ll prove me wrong in this category. He needs to, and Michigan NEEDS him to, and Harbaugh really, really NEEDS him to.
**
When he’s had success throwing from the pocket, it’s often to the tight end, on controlled routes directly over the middle (especially out of the balanced, two-TE set), or to the flats. Those are easy reads when they are your first read. He can handle that. Wisconsin took this away on one occasion early in the game, and he went into scramble mode and threw it away, rather than staying in the pocket and going to second and third reads. Keep him in the pocket, make him go to those reads, and things can get interesting, as has happened with some of his pocket fumbles this year.
PATTERSON'S TARGETS
Michigan’s receivers are good, not great (that’s a phrase I use a lot with this team).
Don Peoples-Jones has a chance to become very good at some point. Right now he’s quite good, at times. He is a deep threat, and has good run-after-catch ability. PFF lists him as the team’s worst blocker, along with third-string TE Eubanks.
UM favors going to the tight ends, Gentry and McKeon. They’re big and reliable, not seam-threatening game-breakers. They do a good job with them on safe routes, and the occasional over route or sneak route to a deep corner.
TE 83 ZACH GENTRY (6-8, 260, Sr.)
* Is tied with Peoples-Jones for the team with 21 catches, and leads in receiving yards with 311.
* 7 catches, 112 yards vs Maryland with a long of 31.
* Leads team in pass yards per game with 44.4, rare for a TE.
TE 84 SEAN McKEON (6-5, 251, Jr.)
* Fifth on the team with 9 catches
* 3 catches, 22 yards against Maryland.
WR NIKO COLLINS (6-4, 218, Soph.)
* Third on the team with 18 receptions.
* next to last on the team in catching percentage (64.3 percent of times targeted)
* He has a good future, has deep-threat capability.
* Averages 42 yards receiving per game and has a 52-yarder.
WR DONOVAN PEOPLES-JONES (6-2, 208, Soph.)
* 21 catches, averaging 35 yards receiving per game. Leads team with five TDs, with a lon gof 41.
88 WR GRANT PERRY
* Known around here as The Grand River Groper, is fourth on the team with 13 catches. A year or two ago, it looked like he was evolving into being more of a standout, but he has settled in as a versatile, reliable type of target.
“Niko Collins is a big, long receiver and he has that deep speed but the rest of this group comes up short and really is underwhelming,” said ESPN draft analyst Todd McShay.
* ALERT: They like trick plays at the 30 to 35 yard line on first or second down (reverse WR pass. Pump fake to the bubble, release a crack blocker deep). They like these tricks when they have room to stretch the defense.
TENDENCIES: On second and long, they like to go empty, and go to the TE on the first read, usually something simple and safe over the middle.
MORE MICRO IN THIS MATCHUP II:
Can Michigan force Brian Lewerke into the one or two mistakes that can tilt this game? Absolutely.
Lewerke has made some good plays, good throws this year. He’s had a good season. But he and the rest of us were expecting a very good season from him. He’s been short of that, due in part to the problems with o-line injuries and instability, plus the recent rash of wide receiver injuries. For most of the season, he has had an unreliable ground game, inconsistent pass protection (especially in the fourth quarter), and recently a group of scout team receivers he has had no rapport with. Even Joe Montana would struggle with that combination.
From there, Lewerke has been a quarter-step slower in terms of foot speed this year, probably due to adding some weight. He has sprayed more inaccurate throws this year too, which I suspect may also be caused by the increased bulk. I predict that he will weigh less next year, and won’t hit the weight room nearly as hard this off-season.
As for this week’s game, there is no doubt that Lewerke has had some erratic moments this year. The question is whether he can exorcise those demons in this game.
He’s a calm thinker, not a panic guy. As great as Kirk Cousins was, he was a little jumpy when he was a sophomore and junior. So was Brian Hoyer, even as a senior. I think Lewerke is more naturally calm than those guys. He had some happy feet in the pocket early in the season, but he went back to trusting his pass protection last week, even when it’s blind faith. He received good protection last week, especially on the game-winning play when Jordan Reid handled d-end Shareef Miller.
HERE’S THE PROBLEM:
The problem for Lewerke is finding available receivers vs Michigan’s terrific pass defense. Even if MSU’s pass protection plays over its head and give Lewerke time, can he find anyone open? Can Michigan State scheme anyone open?
Michigan State will have a small handful of new wrinkles in the pass game that might move the chains a few times, but it’s going to be difficult for Lewerke to consistently drop back (or roll out) and find open receivers. He looked good at times on the move last week, as Michigan State moved the pocket more than they did against Northwestern, something Dantonio probably called for, judging by his post-game comments following the Northwestern game. Lewerke is good on the move, sometimes very good, but in this game, if he leaves the pocket, No. 10 Devin Bush, the dirtiest player I’ve seen in college football over the last three years, will look to take his head off.
LEWERKE’S RECEIVERS
If you’re still reading, then you’re well aware of MSU’s injury problems at WR. Cody White, the team’s leading receiver through the first four games, is out. Darrell Stewart missed last week. I think he’ll be back this week, but at what level? He tried to play vs Northwestern but was limited.
Laress Nelson went down with a leg injury late in the Penn State game after delivering key receptions on the winning drive. He returned for one snap late in the game. It’s unknown how his post-game evaluations went.
Brandon Sowards, a walk-on who provided a lift in late September but has struggled in the last two games, was injured while returning a punt last week. I don’t think he’ll play in this game.
Speedy Jalen Nailor hasn’t played since the Indiana game. He tweeted that he’ll be coming back soon, but who knows.
Felton Davis isn’t 100 percent, but he’ll do his thing.
Cam Chambers made some plays against Northwestern and Central Michigan. Last week, he suffered a hand/wrist injury while receiving a deep pass from Connor Heyward at the goal line off a halfback option. He left the game, wrapped his hand, and came back and tried to play. He made one bread-basket catch. But had another pass glance off his club hand and into the arms of a PSU cornerback for an interception which almost resulted in a game-clinching pick six.
Will Chambers play? Probably. At what level?
Will Nelson play? I don’t know, but they need some human beings.
My guess is that Davis, and versions of Stewart and Chambers will be available. No clue on Nelson or Nailor.
Lewerke dark-joked about the state of the WR situation last week, saying sometimes he had no idea what WR group was being sent out to him in key situations last week. He showed some frustration when walk-on speedster Andre Welch (or perhaps freshman RB Weston Bridges) failed to make an in-cut on an option route last week, resulting in a dangerous incompletion.
Overall, Lewerke had two or three interceptions dropped last week, including one on the final drive.
Dropped interceptions, catch failures in the end zone, ill-times penalties, phantom penalties, fumbles which stay in, or go out of bounds. Those things have affected both teams this year, and will affect all teams in this sport. There is a lot of parity, a lot of close games, and most scenarios suggest that this will be one of them, with a bounce, a call, a catch-drop failure being one of the two or three plays that will turn this game.
Lewerke will take chances. Unlike Patterson, he will attempt throws as a receiver is into his cut, sometimes before his cut. I haven’t seen him do that a lot with this second and third batch of receivers he has to work with, but you have to anticipate and be on time with the throw if you want to have success with the pass against Michigan. But there’s risk in that element.
The chances of throwing tip-drill interceptions against Michigan, with the combination Lewerke is working with, is higher than usual. UM’s pass defense is good, quick, athletic, handsy. They’ll hold and water ski behind receivers in man-to-man, like Central Michigan did, but much better. They’ll close on the ball quickly. Windows will be tight.
Can Lewerke navigate those windows without a fatal mistake? If he does, Michigan State will be a step closer to victory.
If Michigan State can run the ball and keep him in manageable situations, Michigan State will be a step closer to victory.
If Michigan State can stop the run and put Patterson in unfavorable situations, Michigan State will be a step closer to victory.
Achieving those “ifs” determine this game, and the direction of the season for both teams.
MSU PASS GAME VS UM
* Michigan State will look to mix it up, trying to establish the run, occasionally moving the pocket, occasionally throwing from the pocket on first-and-10, and then trying to use Michigan’s fast-flow aggressiveness against them with throwback screens. The screens are coming. Michigan State has had mixed success with screen passes this year (attempted too many of them vs zone against Northwestern, but had some big-play success against Utah State and ASU with them, and ignited last week’s game winning drive with one, and has had some famous throwback screens for huge plays against Michigan, including last year’s TD to Madre London, and the game-changing long-gainer to Trevon Pendleton in 2015).
Michigan will occasionally play some zone, like they did last week when forcing a poorly-thrown INT vs cover-two. Zones are a screen’s worst nightmare. But, for the most part, UM will be in man-to-man, sometimes without worrying about trying to disguise it.
ANY WEAKNESSES?
Michigan’s nickel back is a weakness, No. 16, Jalen Kelly-Powell. They’ll play him in the slot. He was beaten by a step on a 20-yard corner route last week or the week before, but the QB missed him. He was also beaten on a crossing route in man-to-man on fourth down against Maryland. Notre Dame beat him deep.
He’s not terrible. But this is a defense with few weaknesses. Attacking No. 16 in the nickel defense is one place to look for opportunities. If Felton Davis is the No. 2 receiver to the field on third down, Michigan State is probably trying to get him to match up vs. No. 16. We’ll have to wait and see if Michigan shuffles things to put someone else on Davis. If so, then that usually decreases the likelihood of zone, which helps the QB’s pre-snap read.
* Does UM have a corner who can body-up Felton Davis? Maybe not in the true, physical sense, but the UM corners have fast feet, and tactically hold. UM's corners were flagged for volunteer pass interference twice against Northwestern. They'll do it as a tactic. Davis has faced it before.
These UM corners are good, but if UM is in man-to-man, and repeatedly helps with a safety against Davis, there should be openings for sneak routes and screens to the other side.
I don't necessarily see Davis having a "you can't stop me" type of game against these guys. He'll get his. And Lewerke has to make sure he doesn't force too much at Davis in a crowd. You can push that risk envelope once in a great while, but it will bite you if you do it too much against these guys. They're quick, experienced and well-coached.
Will Davis be able to post up and dominate in Braylon Edwards fashion? I don't think so. The officials can throw the flag only so many times. Davis will make some plays, but MSU will need other aspects to deliver.
* As for LB Devin Bush, he’s fast and a heavy hitter, and a good pass rusher. They like to use him as a spy vs mobile QBs. Lewerke hurt Michigan with a TD scramble last year.
If Bush is spying, then he’s not rushing the QB (unless it’s a delayed green-dog blitz). If he’s spying, then there’s one fewer player in “real” pass coverage. If he’s spying, he might hurt your ability to tuck and run, but in this great sport, strengthening one aspect will weaken you elsewhere. If he spies a lot, MSU should have an ap for that.
PASS PROTECTION MATCH-UPS
MSU’s o-line will start the same five players this week for only the second time all year. Last week, Michigan State went with the same five o-linemen for the entire game, a big change from the way Michigan State usually does it.
Why did they do that? First of all, they don’t have as many subs as they normally do. Luke Campbell is the only proven back-up. He only played in goal-line situations last week.
Also, the coaches felt they needed to simplify things, get a set five, and move forward with it. RB Connor Heyward said he noticed a difference.
So Michigan State has gone from messy, at times terrible, on the o-line, to functional.
Now they’re facing a quality defensive front.
It’s a good Michigan defensive front, but not as good as last year. They haven’t replaced Maurice Hurst with anyone like Maurice Hurst.
Michigan is functional at defensive tackle, not great. They’re kind of good. A good run game can plow right at them, up the middle, as Wisconsin began to do last week. With a favorable fumble bounce, Wisconsin would have taken that game into the fourth quarter within a TD of Michigan, if not leading the game. From there, the UW run game could have taken more of a hold. But it wasn’t in the cards for Wisconsin because their QB was terrible against Michigan’s pass defense. He was panicked against the pass rush. He needlessly had happy feet on the poor INT into cover-two.
MSU isn’t likely to have the run game Wisconsin had, but Michigan State should have much better defense than the Badgers, and needs to have better, steadier QB play.
Getting back to pass protection: Right tackle Jordan Reid has been solid in pass protection lately.
Left tackle Cole Chewins struggled last week, still working to get back from his early-season injury.
I didn’t have time to go back and watch Chewins vs UM standout Chase Winovich from last year, but I don’t remember Chewins having a big problem. That doesn’t mean there won’t be problems this time. He’ll see Winovich, who will play on the right and left end. Chewins needs to be better than he was last week.
Michigan State used RBs and TEs to help with pass protection last week, with chip blocks, or by staying in for max pro. That helps with protection, but also makes it easier for the pass defense to converge on fewer route runners.
Michigan’s pass rush was a huge factor late in the Northwestern game, and in the comeback in general. Winovich is excellent. Overall, Michigan’s pass rush hasn’t been as productive as I expected.
Michigan ranks No. 4 in the Big Ten in sacks per game at 2.9 (Michigan State is No. 7 at 2.3).
Rashan Gary missed last week with an injury. Most rumor mongers in Ann Arbor have him as doubtful for this game.
On third downs, No. 6 checks in as an edge DPR and No. 50 checks in as a nose guard. Both are quite good in pass rush situations.
No. 6 is Josh Uche (6-3, 238, Jr.) He is a longer, leaner version of Brandon Randle.
No. 50 is Michael Dwumfour (6-2, 285, Jr.). He is a plus pass rusher for his position, but not a quality every-down d-tackle. He can be moved by a double-team when playing the run.
UM’s sack leaders:
LB Devin Bush 3.5
DE Chase Winovich 3.0
DPR Josh Uche 3.0
DE Rashan Gary 2.0
DT Michael Dwumfour 2.0
Dwumfour went down with an injury against Maryland. He came back and played 10 snaps last week. He played 40 snaps against Northwestern.
Winovich is among the nation's leaders in TFLs. He plays with great energy and spirit. He's slippery and strong, with a great motor. He keeps going and going, and eventually the dam breaks and he makes plays. But he isn't an unblockable freak.
Overall, Michigan’s pass rush can be intimidating with their wide speed off the edge, and the threat of bringing a LB blitz. But it’s not like Ohio State last year, or Alabama in past years when they can and will get pressure with a standard down four from all four positions. It’s a good pass rush, but not necessarily great on first or second down, if you go to the air off-schedule.
If Michigan State can establish the run, and stay out of unfavorable down-and-distance, it will mitigate the UM pass rush, and help Lewerke avoid mistakes.
CAN MSU RUN THE BALL?
This is one area in which rivalry hatred seems to bring out the best in Michigan State. There have been times in recent years against Michigan when the Spartans should have had no business being able to run the ball, yet they succeeded somehow.
Last year, MSU’s run game had been struggling through the opening weeks. Michigan had the best run defense in the country. Michigan State had no business finding success on the ground, yet they did, running for more than 160 yards against Michigan.
Two years ago when Michigan State was awful, Michigan had a great run defense. Yet Michigan State came out and ran the ball down UM’s throat for a TD on the opening drive. Michigan State wasn’t able to sustain that success, but they ran better than expected in each of the last two years.
Different players this year, but similar circumstances. Rivalry hatred seems to fuel MSU’s o-line. UM fully expects to stop the run. But they didn’t stop the run all that well against UW’s inside runs last week.
UW is SUPPOSED to have a great o-line, but I watched their game against BYU and BYU’s defense owned the line of scrimmage against Wisconsin in the second half of that game. That was an embarrassment to the Big Ten.
UM has terrific speed at linebacker, good speed everywhere, and they rally to the ball with quickness and vigor.
But straight up the middle, their d-tackles are merely good, not great.
Brian Mone (6-4, 335, Sr.), their big nose guard, is firm early in the game when two-gapping. But his firmness deteriorates as a game wears on. Harbaugh described him as immovable prior to the season. He is somewhat firm for a few downs, but he doesn’t do a good job of disengaging.
The other d-tackle, Carlo Kemp (6-3, 280, Jr.) is functional, not great.
A good o-line can lean on those starting d-tackles and get movement. Is Michigan State a good o-line? They haven’t been, so far this season. But they were better last week. And there was no clue that they would produce against Michigan last year.
Michigan’s defense is supposed to be so great. I’ve seen National Championship defensive lines. I’ve covered College Football Playoff defensive lines. I watch d-line play closely. Michigan’s d-line is pretty good, but it’s not up there with OSU of last year, or Michigan State of 2013 and ’14, or the freak shows we’ve seen at Alabama and Clemson.
Wisconsin ran for 183 last week. Taylor, their terrific RB, ran for 101 on 17 carries. If the score hadn’t gotten away for reasons outside of the run game, Taylor would have had his 150-plus to 175 against Michigan.
Michigan State doesn’t have a Taylor. But Wisconsin didn’t have MSU’s defense, a calm QB, or a home field advantage, or the jihad fury that Michigan State will play with.
In short: A quality running attack can land some blows against Michigan, if other aspects are in place.
Kemp and Mone are functional. Their back-ups aren’t nearly as good as MSU’s back-up defensive tackles.
Lawrence Marshall has decent north-south athleticism but is mediocre at the point of attack. Dwumfour struggles in run defense. So does sophomore Aubrey Solomon (6-3, 287). Solomon reportedly underwent knee surgery in September. I give him credit for playing, and he might be a good player some day, but he wouldn’t be in the playing group at Michigan State this year.
Aside from Mone, these d-tackles aren’t big. Kemp is 280, Solomon is 287, Marshall is 285 and unphysical.
The Wolverine echo chamber keeps telling you how great this defense is, but when you look under the hood, they aren’t big or strong up the middle. When a quality team takes advantage of this, the Wal-Marters will be palms-up, asking the carnival barkers what the hell went wrong. I’m not sure if Michigan State has the goods to take advantage, but there is softness inside.
UM will rally to the ball with speed and numbers. But if you get the ground game going, and their help has to flow faster and faster to the scene, that opens up the counter screen game.
Their ILBs, Bush and Ross (or Gill) are athletic and energetic, especially when pursuing sideline to sideline.
But if your run game can move the d-tackles and drive right up the middle into the laps of their smallish, fast ILBs, they don’t like that. They aren’t downhill thumpers. A good running attack can thump them, and that’s what UW was on schedule to do, if the rest of their team had been up to it.
PFF agrees with my eyes in this category. In terms of run defense grades, PFF had only three Michigan players graded with winning performances (65 points or higher) in run defense last week: LB John Ross, Winovich and d-end Kwity Paye (Gary's back-up).
Mone, Dwumfour, Marshall, Bush and Khaleke Hudson were 60 or lower. Hudson was a dreadful 39.1. Hudson is a good run-and-chase guy, but not so good at the point of attack.
I’ve watched Alabama, I’ve seen Alabama live, and Senator, this is no Alabama.
WHAT ABOUT UM’S RUN GAME?
They put up 300-plus yards last week. You’ve seen all the highlights. Those numbers and those highlights are what has the masses thinking UM is on the cusp of great things.
But UW’s defense is down many levels from their defenses of recent years.
True, UM’s o-line is good. They are varied. They run a lot of stuff, use multiple formations, use play-action, and play a nice style of conventional offense.
But now they’re facing a terrific run defense.
Now UM will be in prove-manhood form. They will be jacked up to prove they can run the ball against the so-called No. 1 rush defense in the nation. They might have some success here and there, with some new wrinkles in the run game. But overall, if you’re Michigan, and you’re banking on running the ball, you’d better pack a lunch and a flashlight, as George Perles used to say.
I think MSU’s d-tackles will control the middle in this game, and they will stay fresh because MSU’s back-up d-tackles will do just fine, too.
WHAT ABOUT THOSE HIGHLIGHTS?
UM rushed for 320 last week. Patterson gained 81 on one surprise play, a zone read keeper with the tight end executed a bluff-and-arc block. Nice ploy. You’ve seen it.
Back-up QB McCaffrey gained 44 on the same surprise play.
That’s 125 yards on two plays that wouldn’t be duplicated if the two teams played again because, well, it’s on film now.
UM rushed for 195 yards on its other 46 carries for a healthy 4.2 average. That’s good work, against a teetering UW defense with no depth.
If they think they’re the new Barry Switzer Sooners and can run for 300 on a weekly basis, well it’s not happening this week.
Will they run for 150 or something less than 75? I don’t have the answer to that question, but that answer will go a long way to determining this game.
I’m guessing Michigan will need to find a way to win while being limited to about 85 yards rushing.
WHERE UM’S RUN GAME WILL ATTACK?
According to PFF, Michigan runs far more around left end than right end, twice as much (62 times this year around left end, 33 around right).
Average per gain to left and right is even.
**
For what it’s worth, by comparison, Michigan State is completely balanced in run direction.
Michigan State has attempted 36 rushes around left end and 32 around right end.
MSU’s rush attempts to LT, LG, Middle Left, Middle Right, RG and RT are evenly-distributed for the year at 17, 17, 15, 14, 15, 14 attempts each.
Michigan is running to the edges more so than the middle, compared to Michigan State. From LT, LG, ML, MR, RG and RT, Michigan’s attempt totals are 30, 13, 26, 21, 37, 25. Not as balanced. They don’t run to the left guard often.
**
Michigan’s ball carriers are running harder than MSU’s.
Michigan State is averaging 2.1 yards after contact. Michigan is averaging 3.2 yards after contact.
RB Higdan is good. No way around that. Quick, good moves, power at the end, break-away speed, vision. He’s had a lot of work this year. He’ll need to show no wear on Saturday.
He had only 11 yards on seven rushes in the first half last week.
In Higdan’s last four games:
19 rushes, 111 yards vs Wisconsin (5.5 average).
25 rushes, 106 yards vs Maryland (4.1 average).
30 rushes, 115 yards vs. Northwestern (3.8 average)
12 rushes, 136 yards vs Nebraska (11.3 average)
[Nebraska attempted to play a 30 front two-gapping scheme. I don’t know if Nebraska is getting any better at it, but as of that game, that was the worst attempted two-gapping scheme I think I’ve seen from a major conference defense in at least 10 years. They don’t have the players to two-gap, but tried it anyway].
UM rushed for 171 against Maryland.
UM rushed for 180 against Northwestern.
UM rushed for 285 against Nebraska.
The Notre Dame game barely is worth mentioning, UM was so bad that night, so unprepared, pursuit angles and effort from the very first snap were terrible. I seriously wondered about leadership at that point. But UM proved me wrong in that angle. They have played with togetherness and enthusiasm since then. We’ll see if that continues if they run into some tough times this weekend.
Against ND, UM rushed for 58 yards (1.8 per attempt).
Higdan rushed for 72 yards (3.4 per rush).
Higdan's back-up, Chris Evans, has been a good one in the past. He's been injured this year. He missed two or three games, and returned last week, but doesn't yet have his usual juice.
**
OTHER PFF STATS:
* PFF has UM with only four dropped passes all year.
PFF has Michigan State with 12 dropped passes on the year, five last week.
Both teams are averaging 5.1 yards after the catch.
SOMETHING TO WATCH FOR
Michigan is known for using a lot of formations, establishing one thing, and countering to another.
In watching their games against Wisconsin and Maryland, I noticed a huge propensity to run to the TE strength side.
So I rewound and charted it. The tendency was so strong that I turned on the UM-Northwestern game and charted that one too. I haven’t had time to chart the whole season, and PFF surprisingly doesn’t provide info on strong side vs weak side running, but the numbers were staggering in the last three games.
I counted 50 plays (eliminating some mop-up downs) when Michigan used a strong-TE formation. I would define this as times when UM had a TE attached to one side of the offensive line, and no TE to the other side. And times when UM had two TEs attached to the offensive line on one side.
Of those 50 plays with a TE strength of the formation, Michigan ran to the weak side only twice. Of those two plays, one was a counter, and one was a trick reverse. When they run play-action passes, the run fake is always to the TE side. So they are aware of their tendency. I’m just surprised they aren’t as mirrored in their play selection as they are reputed to be.
They operate with the mindset: We're running the ball to the strong side, we don't care if you know it, try to stop us.
They don't do this EVERY down, but they do it often enough. And, like I said, rarely run to the weak side. Sometimes they will fake a jet sweep to the weak side to keep you honest over there.
Maybe they’re setting it up for early-game counters on Saturday. If you see them run to the weak side, or run counters weak, you’ll know they are breaking tendency. But when games get tight, teams want to do what they do best, and they don’t seem interested in running opposite their TE.
Of those 50 plays with a TE strength in the formation, 27 were runs to the TE side and 20 runs began up the middle.
Every time they motioned a TE, they ran the ball to the new TE side, if it was a run play.
* Their TE blockers are good, not great. They are best at down-blocking and sealing the inside for front-side pull guards to fold around them for edge blocking.
WHAT TO WATCH FOR: Look for Michigan’s tight ends. If they motion him, there’s a strong chance they’re running into the direction of the motion.
If they line up with in a balanced line, with one TE to either side (whether they are on the line of scrimmage or off like an H-back, regardless of where the WRs are), they rarely run to the outside off of this look. They will run up the middle, or play-action pass to a TE out of this look, based on the last three games.
WHAT ABOUT THE BALANCED TE FORMATION?
With two TEs, one to each side of the formation, in the three games I charted, Michigan ran left 7, right 5 and up the middle 21.
From what I've seen, when they want to go with play action passing, it's usually out of this TE-to-either-side look.
They broke tendency IN A BIG WAY out of the balanced, two-TE look with the 80-plus yard run by Patterson last week on the split zone read / bluff-arc play. On that play, they ran to the left. Both WRs to the right, giving the QB air to run, to the left.
(Basically, a split zone is when a tight end crosses formation after the snap for a kickout block on trapped edge defender. On the bluff-arc block, the tight end fakes like he is going to kickout block, but instead bluffs around him and arc blocks on the perimeter.)
On this play, the edge defender has been optioned off-balance, and the run game picks up a plus-one blocker on the edge with the tight end now arc blocking.
Nice play. UW wasn’t prepared for it at all. Patterson ran it for a short-yardage TD to the right, later in the game.
The point here is that UM had established a tendency of running inside when having one TE to either side. UW bit hard on the inside run fake.
But it's on film now. UM will try to find new wrinkles.
BATTLE OF THE C GAP
Harbaugh said UM wanted to attack the C-gap area in the second half against Wisconsin, and did so with great success. That was against a 3-4 front. Wisconsin’s d-ends were ripe for downblock seals, and their stand-up edge linebackers are banged up and not firm.
Michigan State will be in a 4-3. Dantonio talks about the importance of controlling the C-gap area on offense and defense.
If Michigan is having trouble running the ball inside, which I think will be the case, Michigan will revert to edge runs, attacking the C-gap, which is becoming a speciality for Michigan.
Northwestern has a terrible run game, but Northwestern didn’t try to run inside at all against Michigan State. Northwestern tried to run outside zone plays, tried to get blocks at the C or D gap. MSU’s defensive ends were terrific that day, beating those tight end blocks, pushing the line of scrimmage backward, and hemming in the edge run plays.
Michigan State and Michigan will wage important battles at the C-gap when UM has the ball, when UM tries their edge run plays, which will almost always (from what I’ve seen) be run to the tight end side.
Michigan will want it to look like this:
MSU will want it to look like this:
SOMETHING THAT MAKES ME PAUSE
* Maryland’s defensive line looked dreadful midway through the game. Guys playing high, getting swept downstream, not much fight, looking tired. Looked like a substandard group. I concluded that Maryland’s d-line, which was their strength in recent years, is down.
Then I looked up the stats, expecting to see Maryland’s run defense at the bottom of the heap in the Big Ten. But I was wrong. Maryland is No. 3 in the Big Ten in total defense and No. 3 in yards allowed per rush.
That’s one of those instances when the numbers don’t agree with what I’m seeing.
There’s only two possibilities: One, Maryland’s run game stats will begin to falter as they play the balance of the schedule. Or two, UM’s o-line wore them out and the UM o-line might be even better than the good hype they are receiving. If that’s the case, maybe Michigan State doesn’t hold Michigan to 65 yards rushing, maybe UM can make a run at 135 or more.
I’m expecting Michigan State to hold Michigan to fewer than 90 yards rushing. I think Michigan will have to find a way to win without dominating on the ground, as they have done in recent weeks.
If MSU is able to surprise everyone and rush for 120 or more while holding UM to 90 or less, then MSU's chances of victory head to about 70 percent in my opinion.
ADD IT ALL UP
I think Michigan is going to have to try to find a way to win outside of its run game. They’ll try to run. I think Michigan State will win that battle. Will Michigan State win it convincingly, or just somewhat consistently? The answers to those questions will have a big outcome on the game.
MSU’s run game has been poor this year. Will it erupt from the dead like we’ve seen in this rivalry in the past? This is one area when the cliché about throwing out the record books holds true. And realize that Michigan’s run defense, up the middle, is not as great as people say.
Michigan’s pass game is good when they are able to run the ball, execute play action, stay on schedule. They’re good when they can choose when to get Patterson the perimeter.
If you upset their apple cart: stop the run, put him in bad down and distance, press the pocket from inside-out, make him stay in the pocket and go through reads, then the offense can conk out quickly. All of those things are possible, although it will be difficult to carry them out. My guess is he will shake loose for some plays. He’s good. He won’t go 0-for-100. Over the course of the game, I think there’s a good chance his completion percentage will be down, his frustration level will be up and propensity to make mistakes, such as fumbling in the pocket, will exist.
As for Lewerke and his unknown receivers against Michigan’s pass defense, that’s a variable that holds danger for Michigan State. Lewerke is good. Felton Davis is good. Can Michigan State get enough pass protection against a good, not great, pass rush? If Michigan State avoids third-and-long, and throws on run downs? Sure, there’s a chance. But it will be hard to consistently carve out success through the air with MSU’s ailing WRs against a terrific, athletic set of DBs who do a good job of pushing the envelope in terms of holding in the secondary. Lewerke needs to avoid mistakes here, while avoiding three-and-outs. That’s a difficult task against this defense, if the run game gets stuffed.
In past years, I’ve talked about the importance for Michigan State to merely get first downs. Get first downs, moved the chains, then punt from 40-yard line or better. UM’s offense feeds off of field position, and their defense. The defense stops you, UM returns a punt 11 yards, and operates with a 55-yard field. If you get caught in this downward spiral, you’re going to lose. That’s why merely getting one, two, three first downs has been so important for Michigan State to stay competitive against Michigan’s defenses over the years. That’s the case in this game too, but if you’re Michigan State, you just wish you had the run game of 2013 or ’14.
As for special teams, MSU’s replacement punter situation hasn’t been a bad thing so far this year, but if this degenerates into a defensive struggle, the punt game and punt return will favor Michigan, substantially. Michigan State is down to its third punt returner, Laress Nelson, that’s IF he’s healthy. If not, look for MSU’s fourth punt returner to be instructed to fair catch everything. Michigan will dominate hidden yardage in this facet of the game.
The fact that Michigan State faked a punt last week, and is always a threat to do so, should make UM play “punt safe” more often, rather than set up for returns. But if they get you in fourth-and-15, they know you’re not going to fake, and that’s when they hit you with a 20-yard return, or more, from Don Peoples-Jones.
Field goal kicking: UM struggled last week, but UM's Nordin will be fine this week. Coughlin is good.
Overall, this is a game that Michigan HAS to win, perhaps more than Michigan State, but they still won’t have the fight that Michigan State will bring. Michigan beating a ranked team on the road for the first time in 18 tries? I’ll need to see that to believe it.
I’m most curious to see if Michigan State can surprise the masses and run the ball a little bit. And I’m eager to see if Michigan can prove it can run the ball against MSU’s so-called great run defense. I think MSU’s run defense is in fact very good. How long UM tries and tries to prove its manhood in this theater of battle will be interesting, and could also have an impact on the momentum and psychology of the game.
Overall, I wouldn’t be surprised if both offenses are miserable, with both fanbases pulling out their hair in frustration. This is so fun.
Predictions? That’s not my bag. I let the reader process through the information I’ve found and come to their own conclusions on which scenario will take hold. But I think Michigan State continues to be a strong bet with the points in this rivalry, and I think Michigan State has at least a solid, 51 percent chance of winning (55 percent if the o-line takes another unforeseen step in development). The notion of Michigan State being a hopeless underdog doesn’t hold wanter, in my opinion. And the 90 percent UM bet that I’m seeing around media circles doesn’t reflect the likelihood that this will be a tight game, decided by a bounce, a drop, a call, or more likely, a QB error.
I'll be editing and cleaning this up throughout the next hour:
PRE-SNAP READ: Michigan vs Michigan State
By Jim Comparoni
As was the case last week, there’s no need for me to go into Michigan’s style of play, pace and the background of their players. You probably are aware of all of that stuff.
I’ll approach this from an Issues & Answers style: the issues Michigan can or tries to present, and MSU’s ability to match-up.
There are some quality pre-game analyses out there on the internet, and I encourage you to seek them out. As usual, I won’t spend time ripping on opposing players. I’ll focus on how the opponent’s players and tendencies directly match-up against MSU’s strengths and weaknesses. I look to find strength vs weakness match-ups, which often lead to disproportionate results (as we saw with MSU’s center vs ASU’s nose guard in week one)
FINAL ANALYSIS FIRST
First, a sequel to the Skull Session podcast and things I’ve written earlier in the week:
I am backing off slightly about Shea Patterson’s problems throwing from the pocket. He had severe problems in the pocket against Notre Dame in the first half and against Northwestern.
I first noticed this when going over the Ole Miss vs LSU game from last year. He holds the ball too long in the pocket, doesn’t seem to process the information quickly, doesn’t appear to be scanning from one read to another very well. Even when he completes passes downfield from the pocket, as was the case on one occasion vs Northwestern and once vs Maryland, the ball comes out late and was under-thrown.
Rather than skimming quickly to a second and third read, he often seemed to make one long read and then go into scramble mode. He’s made plays doing this, so I can understand this as an exit default. But if you can press the pocket from the interior AND prevent him from escaping the pocket, then he and Michigan can have some problems with the pass game.
That was my thought heading into the rest of my film study. But I’ll back off from that a bit because he was good from the pocket against Maryland, aside from a first-half interception (tip drill category, caused partly by holding the ball too long and making a late throw). That being said, Maryland’s defensive line was not good. [I’m stunned that Maryland’s defensive stats (in the top four in the Big Ten) are as good as they are. I would expect those Maryland numbers to suffer in the coming weeks.]
**
Patterson is a pretty good, mobile, college quarterback. He’s at his best when reading on the run, to the left or right, whether by design or in scramble mode. Overall, he is not as good as the pre-season hype. Michigan State has seen terrific QBs in the recent past in terms of zip, quick reads and accuracy from the pocket, as well as being dangerous throwers on the move (Russell Wilson, Marcus Mariota). Patterson is a pretty good, solid college QB but doesn’t consistently have a knife at your throat like those guys.
QUARTERBACK MISTAKES PART I
I think there’s a good chance this game comes down to quarterback mistakes. Which team’s QB will make the mistakes? Which team can force the mistakes?
Does Michigan State have the goods to make things difficult and uncomfortable for Patterson? I think so.
Does Michigan have the goods to make things difficult and uncomfortable for Brian Lewerke? I think so.
And that’s where the game begins, after both teams try to probe the run game.
Michigan State should be able to stop the run better than any team Michigan has played. That’s not a guarantee, but it’s a good-to-strong likelihood.
Stop the run, and it harms the effectiveness of Michigan’s play-action pass game (which they love to use in a balanced, two-TE set. Not so much when both TEs are to one side of the formation).
Stop the run and it puts Michigan in unfavorable down-and-distance, which is something Penn State faced last week, something James Franklin says was a key to the game.
Put Michigan in second-and-long and they love to go to an empty, five-wide formation on second-and-long. I’m not sure whether this is a favorable matchup for Michigan State, but I don’t think it’s as bad as the stat sheet would indicate. I’ve said all year that MSU’s defensive backs and coverages are better than the stat sheet indicates, and that proved to be the case last week. Now it needs to prove this week’s tests.
Michigan’s receivers are similar as a whole to Penn State’s: pretty good, not great. UM uses the tight end far more, more than any team in the country. They do this in part because their wide receivers are unspectacular, said ESPN analyst, scout and sideline reporter Todd McShay.
SOME MICRO IN THIS MATCHUP I:
MSU’s defensive tackles are very good against the run and quite good in pressuring the QB pocket up the middle.
I haven’t seen terrible pass protection from UM this year the way we saw it last year (due to new o-line coach Ed Warriner, whose son is a freshman player at Michigan State).
For what it’s worth, Pro Football Focus rates Michigan’s center and left guard as its two worst pass protectors, giving them lower grades than Jordan Reid and Tyler Higby, to give you a familiar comparison.
I haven’t seen issues with the center and left guard, but that’s what PFF says, take it FWIW.
PFF rates right guard Michael Onwenu as Michigan’s best pass protector and worst run blocker. I kind of see it as the opposite.
So, once again, I find myself occasionally disagreeing with PFF.
Onwenu might miss run blocks when pulling, and that maybe damaged his grade with PFF, but I don’t see them pulling him across formation in recent games as much as they did earlier in the year. He is huge, wide but not terribly mobile, so he is more effective with pulls to the front side, rather than pulling from the back side. I think they have morphed things to fit his strengths and limitations.
I thought double-team run blocks with Onweno and right tackle Bushell-Beaty were good against Maryland, although Maryland stupidly didn’t go to a five-DL goal line defense in short yardage situations.
Anyway, when talking about UM’s o-line interior, Onwenu, Ruiz (the center) and Runyan (the left guard) have to match up with MSU’s strength, the defensive tackle tag team of Raequan Williams and Mike Panasiuk, in addition to MSU’s quality back-ups, Naquan Jones and Gerald Owens.
Can MSU’s d-tackles, and occasional LB blitzes, push the pocket, move Patterson off his point, get him into tuck and panic mode (and he will tuck and panic)? Yes they can, and I suspect they will with semi-regularity.
I haven’t seen Ruiz struggle in pass protection since the Notre Dame game. That was so long ago it’s barely worth mentioning.
PFF rates Ruiz as Michigan’s worst pass protector, giving him a grade that is better than Blake Bueter and Matt Allen, but worse than Tyler Higby.
I don’t know if I agree with all of that, but I think Ruiz, Onwenu and Runyan are about to face the best defensive tackles they’ve seen all year. But they’ve been hearing about MSU’s terrific run defense all week. That’s a bit of a change for this rivalry. Usually Michigan State players get their fuses lit by hearing about how great Michigan’s players are, and I think Michigan players have been negatively affected by back-slapping attaboys and rat poison in this series, over the years.
Michigan is dealing with a major dose of attaboys and “you guys are going to kill them” back slaps all week. Nick Saban would caution that “that stuff is rat poison. If someone is telling you that, they’re trying to set you up.”
Saban is stretching the truth on half of that, but he’s a smart guy. He’s correct in that too many attaboys can mess with a 20-year-old.
This time, Runyan, Ruiz and Onwenu might play with a chip on the shoulder. That could serve them well. Runyan grew up undertanding this rivalry. Onwenu is from Detroit. I don’t think those guys will get caught napping. It makes for a great football matchup.
Overall, I’ll go with MSU’s defensive interior to play strong and win often enough. They’ll help stop the run often enough. They’ll press the pocket often enough.
From there, can Michigan State keep Patterson hemmed in, prevent him from escaping the pocket? That’ll be one of the micro keys of the game, in my opinion.
Last week, Michigan State used more two-gapping along the defensive line in order to press the pocket against Trace McSorley without necessarily getting into gap-shooting chase mode against him. It worked well. McSorley had a substandard game. Meanwhile, Michigan State played more zone coverage than usual, which limited McSorley’s ability to tuck-and-run, an element with which he killed Ohio State.
MSU’s defensive coaches aren’t the dolts you’ve heard they were.
Patterson will throw from the pocket with bad footwork, off his back foot, when feeling a little pressure. I haven’t seen this cost him, in fact I’ve seen him make some good throws when doing this. But if you’re Michigan State, that’s dice you don’t mind rolling.
With the pocket being pressed, will Patterson have open receivers to throw to? Maybe, at times. But, like I said, he doesn’t read, process and find the openings all that well. I’d say that’s his main weakness as a QB, which is a pretty severe weakness against quality defenses in big games. Maybe he’ll prove me wrong in this category. He needs to, and Michigan NEEDS him to, and Harbaugh really, really NEEDS him to.
**
When he’s had success throwing from the pocket, it’s often to the tight end, on controlled routes directly over the middle (especially out of the balanced, two-TE set), or to the flats. Those are easy reads when they are your first read. He can handle that. Wisconsin took this away on one occasion early in the game, and he went into scramble mode and threw it away, rather than staying in the pocket and going to second and third reads. Keep him in the pocket, make him go to those reads, and things can get interesting, as has happened with some of his pocket fumbles this year.
PATTERSON'S TARGETS
Michigan’s receivers are good, not great (that’s a phrase I use a lot with this team).
Don Peoples-Jones has a chance to become very good at some point. Right now he’s quite good, at times. He is a deep threat, and has good run-after-catch ability. PFF lists him as the team’s worst blocker, along with third-string TE Eubanks.
UM favors going to the tight ends, Gentry and McKeon. They’re big and reliable, not seam-threatening game-breakers. They do a good job with them on safe routes, and the occasional over route or sneak route to a deep corner.
TE 83 ZACH GENTRY (6-8, 260, Sr.)
* Is tied with Peoples-Jones for the team with 21 catches, and leads in receiving yards with 311.
* 7 catches, 112 yards vs Maryland with a long of 31.
* Leads team in pass yards per game with 44.4, rare for a TE.
TE 84 SEAN McKEON (6-5, 251, Jr.)
* Fifth on the team with 9 catches
* 3 catches, 22 yards against Maryland.
WR NIKO COLLINS (6-4, 218, Soph.)
* Third on the team with 18 receptions.
* next to last on the team in catching percentage (64.3 percent of times targeted)
* He has a good future, has deep-threat capability.
* Averages 42 yards receiving per game and has a 52-yarder.
WR DONOVAN PEOPLES-JONES (6-2, 208, Soph.)
* 21 catches, averaging 35 yards receiving per game. Leads team with five TDs, with a lon gof 41.
88 WR GRANT PERRY
* Known around here as The Grand River Groper, is fourth on the team with 13 catches. A year or two ago, it looked like he was evolving into being more of a standout, but he has settled in as a versatile, reliable type of target.
“Niko Collins is a big, long receiver and he has that deep speed but the rest of this group comes up short and really is underwhelming,” said ESPN draft analyst Todd McShay.
* ALERT: They like trick plays at the 30 to 35 yard line on first or second down (reverse WR pass. Pump fake to the bubble, release a crack blocker deep). They like these tricks when they have room to stretch the defense.
TENDENCIES: On second and long, they like to go empty, and go to the TE on the first read, usually something simple and safe over the middle.
MORE MICRO IN THIS MATCHUP II:
Can Michigan force Brian Lewerke into the one or two mistakes that can tilt this game? Absolutely.
Lewerke has made some good plays, good throws this year. He’s had a good season. But he and the rest of us were expecting a very good season from him. He’s been short of that, due in part to the problems with o-line injuries and instability, plus the recent rash of wide receiver injuries. For most of the season, he has had an unreliable ground game, inconsistent pass protection (especially in the fourth quarter), and recently a group of scout team receivers he has had no rapport with. Even Joe Montana would struggle with that combination.
From there, Lewerke has been a quarter-step slower in terms of foot speed this year, probably due to adding some weight. He has sprayed more inaccurate throws this year too, which I suspect may also be caused by the increased bulk. I predict that he will weigh less next year, and won’t hit the weight room nearly as hard this off-season.
As for this week’s game, there is no doubt that Lewerke has had some erratic moments this year. The question is whether he can exorcise those demons in this game.
He’s a calm thinker, not a panic guy. As great as Kirk Cousins was, he was a little jumpy when he was a sophomore and junior. So was Brian Hoyer, even as a senior. I think Lewerke is more naturally calm than those guys. He had some happy feet in the pocket early in the season, but he went back to trusting his pass protection last week, even when it’s blind faith. He received good protection last week, especially on the game-winning play when Jordan Reid handled d-end Shareef Miller.
HERE’S THE PROBLEM:
The problem for Lewerke is finding available receivers vs Michigan’s terrific pass defense. Even if MSU’s pass protection plays over its head and give Lewerke time, can he find anyone open? Can Michigan State scheme anyone open?
Michigan State will have a small handful of new wrinkles in the pass game that might move the chains a few times, but it’s going to be difficult for Lewerke to consistently drop back (or roll out) and find open receivers. He looked good at times on the move last week, as Michigan State moved the pocket more than they did against Northwestern, something Dantonio probably called for, judging by his post-game comments following the Northwestern game. Lewerke is good on the move, sometimes very good, but in this game, if he leaves the pocket, No. 10 Devin Bush, the dirtiest player I’ve seen in college football over the last three years, will look to take his head off.
LEWERKE’S RECEIVERS
If you’re still reading, then you’re well aware of MSU’s injury problems at WR. Cody White, the team’s leading receiver through the first four games, is out. Darrell Stewart missed last week. I think he’ll be back this week, but at what level? He tried to play vs Northwestern but was limited.
Laress Nelson went down with a leg injury late in the Penn State game after delivering key receptions on the winning drive. He returned for one snap late in the game. It’s unknown how his post-game evaluations went.
Brandon Sowards, a walk-on who provided a lift in late September but has struggled in the last two games, was injured while returning a punt last week. I don’t think he’ll play in this game.
Speedy Jalen Nailor hasn’t played since the Indiana game. He tweeted that he’ll be coming back soon, but who knows.
Felton Davis isn’t 100 percent, but he’ll do his thing.
Cam Chambers made some plays against Northwestern and Central Michigan. Last week, he suffered a hand/wrist injury while receiving a deep pass from Connor Heyward at the goal line off a halfback option. He left the game, wrapped his hand, and came back and tried to play. He made one bread-basket catch. But had another pass glance off his club hand and into the arms of a PSU cornerback for an interception which almost resulted in a game-clinching pick six.
Will Chambers play? Probably. At what level?
Will Nelson play? I don’t know, but they need some human beings.
My guess is that Davis, and versions of Stewart and Chambers will be available. No clue on Nelson or Nailor.
Lewerke dark-joked about the state of the WR situation last week, saying sometimes he had no idea what WR group was being sent out to him in key situations last week. He showed some frustration when walk-on speedster Andre Welch (or perhaps freshman RB Weston Bridges) failed to make an in-cut on an option route last week, resulting in a dangerous incompletion.
Overall, Lewerke had two or three interceptions dropped last week, including one on the final drive.
Dropped interceptions, catch failures in the end zone, ill-times penalties, phantom penalties, fumbles which stay in, or go out of bounds. Those things have affected both teams this year, and will affect all teams in this sport. There is a lot of parity, a lot of close games, and most scenarios suggest that this will be one of them, with a bounce, a call, a catch-drop failure being one of the two or three plays that will turn this game.
Lewerke will take chances. Unlike Patterson, he will attempt throws as a receiver is into his cut, sometimes before his cut. I haven’t seen him do that a lot with this second and third batch of receivers he has to work with, but you have to anticipate and be on time with the throw if you want to have success with the pass against Michigan. But there’s risk in that element.
The chances of throwing tip-drill interceptions against Michigan, with the combination Lewerke is working with, is higher than usual. UM’s pass defense is good, quick, athletic, handsy. They’ll hold and water ski behind receivers in man-to-man, like Central Michigan did, but much better. They’ll close on the ball quickly. Windows will be tight.
Can Lewerke navigate those windows without a fatal mistake? If he does, Michigan State will be a step closer to victory.
If Michigan State can run the ball and keep him in manageable situations, Michigan State will be a step closer to victory.
If Michigan State can stop the run and put Patterson in unfavorable situations, Michigan State will be a step closer to victory.
Achieving those “ifs” determine this game, and the direction of the season for both teams.
MSU PASS GAME VS UM
* Michigan State will look to mix it up, trying to establish the run, occasionally moving the pocket, occasionally throwing from the pocket on first-and-10, and then trying to use Michigan’s fast-flow aggressiveness against them with throwback screens. The screens are coming. Michigan State has had mixed success with screen passes this year (attempted too many of them vs zone against Northwestern, but had some big-play success against Utah State and ASU with them, and ignited last week’s game winning drive with one, and has had some famous throwback screens for huge plays against Michigan, including last year’s TD to Madre London, and the game-changing long-gainer to Trevon Pendleton in 2015).
Michigan will occasionally play some zone, like they did last week when forcing a poorly-thrown INT vs cover-two. Zones are a screen’s worst nightmare. But, for the most part, UM will be in man-to-man, sometimes without worrying about trying to disguise it.
ANY WEAKNESSES?
Michigan’s nickel back is a weakness, No. 16, Jalen Kelly-Powell. They’ll play him in the slot. He was beaten by a step on a 20-yard corner route last week or the week before, but the QB missed him. He was also beaten on a crossing route in man-to-man on fourth down against Maryland. Notre Dame beat him deep.
He’s not terrible. But this is a defense with few weaknesses. Attacking No. 16 in the nickel defense is one place to look for opportunities. If Felton Davis is the No. 2 receiver to the field on third down, Michigan State is probably trying to get him to match up vs. No. 16. We’ll have to wait and see if Michigan shuffles things to put someone else on Davis. If so, then that usually decreases the likelihood of zone, which helps the QB’s pre-snap read.
* Does UM have a corner who can body-up Felton Davis? Maybe not in the true, physical sense, but the UM corners have fast feet, and tactically hold. UM's corners were flagged for volunteer pass interference twice against Northwestern. They'll do it as a tactic. Davis has faced it before.
These UM corners are good, but if UM is in man-to-man, and repeatedly helps with a safety against Davis, there should be openings for sneak routes and screens to the other side.
I don't necessarily see Davis having a "you can't stop me" type of game against these guys. He'll get his. And Lewerke has to make sure he doesn't force too much at Davis in a crowd. You can push that risk envelope once in a great while, but it will bite you if you do it too much against these guys. They're quick, experienced and well-coached.
Will Davis be able to post up and dominate in Braylon Edwards fashion? I don't think so. The officials can throw the flag only so many times. Davis will make some plays, but MSU will need other aspects to deliver.
* As for LB Devin Bush, he’s fast and a heavy hitter, and a good pass rusher. They like to use him as a spy vs mobile QBs. Lewerke hurt Michigan with a TD scramble last year.
If Bush is spying, then he’s not rushing the QB (unless it’s a delayed green-dog blitz). If he’s spying, then there’s one fewer player in “real” pass coverage. If he’s spying, he might hurt your ability to tuck and run, but in this great sport, strengthening one aspect will weaken you elsewhere. If he spies a lot, MSU should have an ap for that.
PASS PROTECTION MATCH-UPS
MSU’s o-line will start the same five players this week for only the second time all year. Last week, Michigan State went with the same five o-linemen for the entire game, a big change from the way Michigan State usually does it.
Why did they do that? First of all, they don’t have as many subs as they normally do. Luke Campbell is the only proven back-up. He only played in goal-line situations last week.
Also, the coaches felt they needed to simplify things, get a set five, and move forward with it. RB Connor Heyward said he noticed a difference.
So Michigan State has gone from messy, at times terrible, on the o-line, to functional.
Now they’re facing a quality defensive front.
It’s a good Michigan defensive front, but not as good as last year. They haven’t replaced Maurice Hurst with anyone like Maurice Hurst.
Michigan is functional at defensive tackle, not great. They’re kind of good. A good run game can plow right at them, up the middle, as Wisconsin began to do last week. With a favorable fumble bounce, Wisconsin would have taken that game into the fourth quarter within a TD of Michigan, if not leading the game. From there, the UW run game could have taken more of a hold. But it wasn’t in the cards for Wisconsin because their QB was terrible against Michigan’s pass defense. He was panicked against the pass rush. He needlessly had happy feet on the poor INT into cover-two.
MSU isn’t likely to have the run game Wisconsin had, but Michigan State should have much better defense than the Badgers, and needs to have better, steadier QB play.
Getting back to pass protection: Right tackle Jordan Reid has been solid in pass protection lately.
Left tackle Cole Chewins struggled last week, still working to get back from his early-season injury.
I didn’t have time to go back and watch Chewins vs UM standout Chase Winovich from last year, but I don’t remember Chewins having a big problem. That doesn’t mean there won’t be problems this time. He’ll see Winovich, who will play on the right and left end. Chewins needs to be better than he was last week.
Michigan State used RBs and TEs to help with pass protection last week, with chip blocks, or by staying in for max pro. That helps with protection, but also makes it easier for the pass defense to converge on fewer route runners.
Michigan’s pass rush was a huge factor late in the Northwestern game, and in the comeback in general. Winovich is excellent. Overall, Michigan’s pass rush hasn’t been as productive as I expected.
Michigan ranks No. 4 in the Big Ten in sacks per game at 2.9 (Michigan State is No. 7 at 2.3).
Rashan Gary missed last week with an injury. Most rumor mongers in Ann Arbor have him as doubtful for this game.
On third downs, No. 6 checks in as an edge DPR and No. 50 checks in as a nose guard. Both are quite good in pass rush situations.
No. 6 is Josh Uche (6-3, 238, Jr.) He is a longer, leaner version of Brandon Randle.
No. 50 is Michael Dwumfour (6-2, 285, Jr.). He is a plus pass rusher for his position, but not a quality every-down d-tackle. He can be moved by a double-team when playing the run.
UM’s sack leaders:
LB Devin Bush 3.5
DE Chase Winovich 3.0
DPR Josh Uche 3.0
DE Rashan Gary 2.0
DT Michael Dwumfour 2.0
Dwumfour went down with an injury against Maryland. He came back and played 10 snaps last week. He played 40 snaps against Northwestern.
Winovich is among the nation's leaders in TFLs. He plays with great energy and spirit. He's slippery and strong, with a great motor. He keeps going and going, and eventually the dam breaks and he makes plays. But he isn't an unblockable freak.
Overall, Michigan’s pass rush can be intimidating with their wide speed off the edge, and the threat of bringing a LB blitz. But it’s not like Ohio State last year, or Alabama in past years when they can and will get pressure with a standard down four from all four positions. It’s a good pass rush, but not necessarily great on first or second down, if you go to the air off-schedule.
If Michigan State can establish the run, and stay out of unfavorable down-and-distance, it will mitigate the UM pass rush, and help Lewerke avoid mistakes.
CAN MSU RUN THE BALL?
This is one area in which rivalry hatred seems to bring out the best in Michigan State. There have been times in recent years against Michigan when the Spartans should have had no business being able to run the ball, yet they succeeded somehow.
Last year, MSU’s run game had been struggling through the opening weeks. Michigan had the best run defense in the country. Michigan State had no business finding success on the ground, yet they did, running for more than 160 yards against Michigan.
Two years ago when Michigan State was awful, Michigan had a great run defense. Yet Michigan State came out and ran the ball down UM’s throat for a TD on the opening drive. Michigan State wasn’t able to sustain that success, but they ran better than expected in each of the last two years.
Different players this year, but similar circumstances. Rivalry hatred seems to fuel MSU’s o-line. UM fully expects to stop the run. But they didn’t stop the run all that well against UW’s inside runs last week.
UW is SUPPOSED to have a great o-line, but I watched their game against BYU and BYU’s defense owned the line of scrimmage against Wisconsin in the second half of that game. That was an embarrassment to the Big Ten.
UM has terrific speed at linebacker, good speed everywhere, and they rally to the ball with quickness and vigor.
But straight up the middle, their d-tackles are merely good, not great.
Brian Mone (6-4, 335, Sr.), their big nose guard, is firm early in the game when two-gapping. But his firmness deteriorates as a game wears on. Harbaugh described him as immovable prior to the season. He is somewhat firm for a few downs, but he doesn’t do a good job of disengaging.
The other d-tackle, Carlo Kemp (6-3, 280, Jr.) is functional, not great.
A good o-line can lean on those starting d-tackles and get movement. Is Michigan State a good o-line? They haven’t been, so far this season. But they were better last week. And there was no clue that they would produce against Michigan last year.
Michigan’s defense is supposed to be so great. I’ve seen National Championship defensive lines. I’ve covered College Football Playoff defensive lines. I watch d-line play closely. Michigan’s d-line is pretty good, but it’s not up there with OSU of last year, or Michigan State of 2013 and ’14, or the freak shows we’ve seen at Alabama and Clemson.
Wisconsin ran for 183 last week. Taylor, their terrific RB, ran for 101 on 17 carries. If the score hadn’t gotten away for reasons outside of the run game, Taylor would have had his 150-plus to 175 against Michigan.
Michigan State doesn’t have a Taylor. But Wisconsin didn’t have MSU’s defense, a calm QB, or a home field advantage, or the jihad fury that Michigan State will play with.
In short: A quality running attack can land some blows against Michigan, if other aspects are in place.
Kemp and Mone are functional. Their back-ups aren’t nearly as good as MSU’s back-up defensive tackles.
Lawrence Marshall has decent north-south athleticism but is mediocre at the point of attack. Dwumfour struggles in run defense. So does sophomore Aubrey Solomon (6-3, 287). Solomon reportedly underwent knee surgery in September. I give him credit for playing, and he might be a good player some day, but he wouldn’t be in the playing group at Michigan State this year.
Aside from Mone, these d-tackles aren’t big. Kemp is 280, Solomon is 287, Marshall is 285 and unphysical.
The Wolverine echo chamber keeps telling you how great this defense is, but when you look under the hood, they aren’t big or strong up the middle. When a quality team takes advantage of this, the Wal-Marters will be palms-up, asking the carnival barkers what the hell went wrong. I’m not sure if Michigan State has the goods to take advantage, but there is softness inside.
UM will rally to the ball with speed and numbers. But if you get the ground game going, and their help has to flow faster and faster to the scene, that opens up the counter screen game.
Their ILBs, Bush and Ross (or Gill) are athletic and energetic, especially when pursuing sideline to sideline.
But if your run game can move the d-tackles and drive right up the middle into the laps of their smallish, fast ILBs, they don’t like that. They aren’t downhill thumpers. A good running attack can thump them, and that’s what UW was on schedule to do, if the rest of their team had been up to it.
PFF agrees with my eyes in this category. In terms of run defense grades, PFF had only three Michigan players graded with winning performances (65 points or higher) in run defense last week: LB John Ross, Winovich and d-end Kwity Paye (Gary's back-up).
Mone, Dwumfour, Marshall, Bush and Khaleke Hudson were 60 or lower. Hudson was a dreadful 39.1. Hudson is a good run-and-chase guy, but not so good at the point of attack.
I’ve watched Alabama, I’ve seen Alabama live, and Senator, this is no Alabama.
WHAT ABOUT UM’S RUN GAME?
They put up 300-plus yards last week. You’ve seen all the highlights. Those numbers and those highlights are what has the masses thinking UM is on the cusp of great things.
But UW’s defense is down many levels from their defenses of recent years.
True, UM’s o-line is good. They are varied. They run a lot of stuff, use multiple formations, use play-action, and play a nice style of conventional offense.
But now they’re facing a terrific run defense.
Now UM will be in prove-manhood form. They will be jacked up to prove they can run the ball against the so-called No. 1 rush defense in the nation. They might have some success here and there, with some new wrinkles in the run game. But overall, if you’re Michigan, and you’re banking on running the ball, you’d better pack a lunch and a flashlight, as George Perles used to say.
I think MSU’s d-tackles will control the middle in this game, and they will stay fresh because MSU’s back-up d-tackles will do just fine, too.
WHAT ABOUT THOSE HIGHLIGHTS?
UM rushed for 320 last week. Patterson gained 81 on one surprise play, a zone read keeper with the tight end executed a bluff-and-arc block. Nice ploy. You’ve seen it.
Back-up QB McCaffrey gained 44 on the same surprise play.
That’s 125 yards on two plays that wouldn’t be duplicated if the two teams played again because, well, it’s on film now.
UM rushed for 195 yards on its other 46 carries for a healthy 4.2 average. That’s good work, against a teetering UW defense with no depth.
If they think they’re the new Barry Switzer Sooners and can run for 300 on a weekly basis, well it’s not happening this week.
Will they run for 150 or something less than 75? I don’t have the answer to that question, but that answer will go a long way to determining this game.
I’m guessing Michigan will need to find a way to win while being limited to about 85 yards rushing.
WHERE UM’S RUN GAME WILL ATTACK?
According to PFF, Michigan runs far more around left end than right end, twice as much (62 times this year around left end, 33 around right).
Average per gain to left and right is even.
**
For what it’s worth, by comparison, Michigan State is completely balanced in run direction.
Michigan State has attempted 36 rushes around left end and 32 around right end.
MSU’s rush attempts to LT, LG, Middle Left, Middle Right, RG and RT are evenly-distributed for the year at 17, 17, 15, 14, 15, 14 attempts each.
Michigan is running to the edges more so than the middle, compared to Michigan State. From LT, LG, ML, MR, RG and RT, Michigan’s attempt totals are 30, 13, 26, 21, 37, 25. Not as balanced. They don’t run to the left guard often.
**
Michigan’s ball carriers are running harder than MSU’s.
Michigan State is averaging 2.1 yards after contact. Michigan is averaging 3.2 yards after contact.
RB Higdan is good. No way around that. Quick, good moves, power at the end, break-away speed, vision. He’s had a lot of work this year. He’ll need to show no wear on Saturday.
He had only 11 yards on seven rushes in the first half last week.
In Higdan’s last four games:
19 rushes, 111 yards vs Wisconsin (5.5 average).
25 rushes, 106 yards vs Maryland (4.1 average).
30 rushes, 115 yards vs. Northwestern (3.8 average)
12 rushes, 136 yards vs Nebraska (11.3 average)
[Nebraska attempted to play a 30 front two-gapping scheme. I don’t know if Nebraska is getting any better at it, but as of that game, that was the worst attempted two-gapping scheme I think I’ve seen from a major conference defense in at least 10 years. They don’t have the players to two-gap, but tried it anyway].
UM rushed for 171 against Maryland.
UM rushed for 180 against Northwestern.
UM rushed for 285 against Nebraska.
The Notre Dame game barely is worth mentioning, UM was so bad that night, so unprepared, pursuit angles and effort from the very first snap were terrible. I seriously wondered about leadership at that point. But UM proved me wrong in that angle. They have played with togetherness and enthusiasm since then. We’ll see if that continues if they run into some tough times this weekend.
Against ND, UM rushed for 58 yards (1.8 per attempt).
Higdan rushed for 72 yards (3.4 per rush).
Higdan's back-up, Chris Evans, has been a good one in the past. He's been injured this year. He missed two or three games, and returned last week, but doesn't yet have his usual juice.
**
OTHER PFF STATS:
* PFF has UM with only four dropped passes all year.
PFF has Michigan State with 12 dropped passes on the year, five last week.
Both teams are averaging 5.1 yards after the catch.
SOMETHING TO WATCH FOR
Michigan is known for using a lot of formations, establishing one thing, and countering to another.
In watching their games against Wisconsin and Maryland, I noticed a huge propensity to run to the TE strength side.
So I rewound and charted it. The tendency was so strong that I turned on the UM-Northwestern game and charted that one too. I haven’t had time to chart the whole season, and PFF surprisingly doesn’t provide info on strong side vs weak side running, but the numbers were staggering in the last three games.
I counted 50 plays (eliminating some mop-up downs) when Michigan used a strong-TE formation. I would define this as times when UM had a TE attached to one side of the offensive line, and no TE to the other side. And times when UM had two TEs attached to the offensive line on one side.
Of those 50 plays with a TE strength of the formation, Michigan ran to the weak side only twice. Of those two plays, one was a counter, and one was a trick reverse. When they run play-action passes, the run fake is always to the TE side. So they are aware of their tendency. I’m just surprised they aren’t as mirrored in their play selection as they are reputed to be.
They operate with the mindset: We're running the ball to the strong side, we don't care if you know it, try to stop us.
They don't do this EVERY down, but they do it often enough. And, like I said, rarely run to the weak side. Sometimes they will fake a jet sweep to the weak side to keep you honest over there.
Maybe they’re setting it up for early-game counters on Saturday. If you see them run to the weak side, or run counters weak, you’ll know they are breaking tendency. But when games get tight, teams want to do what they do best, and they don’t seem interested in running opposite their TE.
Of those 50 plays with a TE strength in the formation, 27 were runs to the TE side and 20 runs began up the middle.
Every time they motioned a TE, they ran the ball to the new TE side, if it was a run play.
* Their TE blockers are good, not great. They are best at down-blocking and sealing the inside for front-side pull guards to fold around them for edge blocking.
WHAT TO WATCH FOR: Look for Michigan’s tight ends. If they motion him, there’s a strong chance they’re running into the direction of the motion.
If they line up with in a balanced line, with one TE to either side (whether they are on the line of scrimmage or off like an H-back, regardless of where the WRs are), they rarely run to the outside off of this look. They will run up the middle, or play-action pass to a TE out of this look, based on the last three games.
WHAT ABOUT THE BALANCED TE FORMATION?
With two TEs, one to each side of the formation, in the three games I charted, Michigan ran left 7, right 5 and up the middle 21.
From what I've seen, when they want to go with play action passing, it's usually out of this TE-to-either-side look.
They broke tendency IN A BIG WAY out of the balanced, two-TE look with the 80-plus yard run by Patterson last week on the split zone read / bluff-arc play. On that play, they ran to the left. Both WRs to the right, giving the QB air to run, to the left.
(Basically, a split zone is when a tight end crosses formation after the snap for a kickout block on trapped edge defender. On the bluff-arc block, the tight end fakes like he is going to kickout block, but instead bluffs around him and arc blocks on the perimeter.)
On this play, the edge defender has been optioned off-balance, and the run game picks up a plus-one blocker on the edge with the tight end now arc blocking.
Nice play. UW wasn’t prepared for it at all. Patterson ran it for a short-yardage TD to the right, later in the game.
The point here is that UM had established a tendency of running inside when having one TE to either side. UW bit hard on the inside run fake.
But it's on film now. UM will try to find new wrinkles.
BATTLE OF THE C GAP
Harbaugh said UM wanted to attack the C-gap area in the second half against Wisconsin, and did so with great success. That was against a 3-4 front. Wisconsin’s d-ends were ripe for downblock seals, and their stand-up edge linebackers are banged up and not firm.
Michigan State will be in a 4-3. Dantonio talks about the importance of controlling the C-gap area on offense and defense.
If Michigan is having trouble running the ball inside, which I think will be the case, Michigan will revert to edge runs, attacking the C-gap, which is becoming a speciality for Michigan.
Northwestern has a terrible run game, but Northwestern didn’t try to run inside at all against Michigan State. Northwestern tried to run outside zone plays, tried to get blocks at the C or D gap. MSU’s defensive ends were terrific that day, beating those tight end blocks, pushing the line of scrimmage backward, and hemming in the edge run plays.
Michigan State and Michigan will wage important battles at the C-gap when UM has the ball, when UM tries their edge run plays, which will almost always (from what I’ve seen) be run to the tight end side.
Michigan will want it to look like this:
MSU will want it to look like this:
SOMETHING THAT MAKES ME PAUSE
* Maryland’s defensive line looked dreadful midway through the game. Guys playing high, getting swept downstream, not much fight, looking tired. Looked like a substandard group. I concluded that Maryland’s d-line, which was their strength in recent years, is down.
Then I looked up the stats, expecting to see Maryland’s run defense at the bottom of the heap in the Big Ten. But I was wrong. Maryland is No. 3 in the Big Ten in total defense and No. 3 in yards allowed per rush.
That’s one of those instances when the numbers don’t agree with what I’m seeing.
There’s only two possibilities: One, Maryland’s run game stats will begin to falter as they play the balance of the schedule. Or two, UM’s o-line wore them out and the UM o-line might be even better than the good hype they are receiving. If that’s the case, maybe Michigan State doesn’t hold Michigan to 65 yards rushing, maybe UM can make a run at 135 or more.
I’m expecting Michigan State to hold Michigan to fewer than 90 yards rushing. I think Michigan will have to find a way to win without dominating on the ground, as they have done in recent weeks.
If MSU is able to surprise everyone and rush for 120 or more while holding UM to 90 or less, then MSU's chances of victory head to about 70 percent in my opinion.
ADD IT ALL UP
I think Michigan is going to have to try to find a way to win outside of its run game. They’ll try to run. I think Michigan State will win that battle. Will Michigan State win it convincingly, or just somewhat consistently? The answers to those questions will have a big outcome on the game.
MSU’s run game has been poor this year. Will it erupt from the dead like we’ve seen in this rivalry in the past? This is one area when the cliché about throwing out the record books holds true. And realize that Michigan’s run defense, up the middle, is not as great as people say.
Michigan’s pass game is good when they are able to run the ball, execute play action, stay on schedule. They’re good when they can choose when to get Patterson the perimeter.
If you upset their apple cart: stop the run, put him in bad down and distance, press the pocket from inside-out, make him stay in the pocket and go through reads, then the offense can conk out quickly. All of those things are possible, although it will be difficult to carry them out. My guess is he will shake loose for some plays. He’s good. He won’t go 0-for-100. Over the course of the game, I think there’s a good chance his completion percentage will be down, his frustration level will be up and propensity to make mistakes, such as fumbling in the pocket, will exist.
As for Lewerke and his unknown receivers against Michigan’s pass defense, that’s a variable that holds danger for Michigan State. Lewerke is good. Felton Davis is good. Can Michigan State get enough pass protection against a good, not great, pass rush? If Michigan State avoids third-and-long, and throws on run downs? Sure, there’s a chance. But it will be hard to consistently carve out success through the air with MSU’s ailing WRs against a terrific, athletic set of DBs who do a good job of pushing the envelope in terms of holding in the secondary. Lewerke needs to avoid mistakes here, while avoiding three-and-outs. That’s a difficult task against this defense, if the run game gets stuffed.
In past years, I’ve talked about the importance for Michigan State to merely get first downs. Get first downs, moved the chains, then punt from 40-yard line or better. UM’s offense feeds off of field position, and their defense. The defense stops you, UM returns a punt 11 yards, and operates with a 55-yard field. If you get caught in this downward spiral, you’re going to lose. That’s why merely getting one, two, three first downs has been so important for Michigan State to stay competitive against Michigan’s defenses over the years. That’s the case in this game too, but if you’re Michigan State, you just wish you had the run game of 2013 or ’14.
As for special teams, MSU’s replacement punter situation hasn’t been a bad thing so far this year, but if this degenerates into a defensive struggle, the punt game and punt return will favor Michigan, substantially. Michigan State is down to its third punt returner, Laress Nelson, that’s IF he’s healthy. If not, look for MSU’s fourth punt returner to be instructed to fair catch everything. Michigan will dominate hidden yardage in this facet of the game.
The fact that Michigan State faked a punt last week, and is always a threat to do so, should make UM play “punt safe” more often, rather than set up for returns. But if they get you in fourth-and-15, they know you’re not going to fake, and that’s when they hit you with a 20-yard return, or more, from Don Peoples-Jones.
Field goal kicking: UM struggled last week, but UM's Nordin will be fine this week. Coughlin is good.
Overall, this is a game that Michigan HAS to win, perhaps more than Michigan State, but they still won’t have the fight that Michigan State will bring. Michigan beating a ranked team on the road for the first time in 18 tries? I’ll need to see that to believe it.
I’m most curious to see if Michigan State can surprise the masses and run the ball a little bit. And I’m eager to see if Michigan can prove it can run the ball against MSU’s so-called great run defense. I think MSU’s run defense is in fact very good. How long UM tries and tries to prove its manhood in this theater of battle will be interesting, and could also have an impact on the momentum and psychology of the game.
Overall, I wouldn’t be surprised if both offenses are miserable, with both fanbases pulling out their hair in frustration. This is so fun.
Predictions? That’s not my bag. I let the reader process through the information I’ve found and come to their own conclusions on which scenario will take hold. But I think Michigan State continues to be a strong bet with the points in this rivalry, and I think Michigan State has at least a solid, 51 percent chance of winning (55 percent if the o-line takes another unforeseen step in development). The notion of Michigan State being a hopeless underdog doesn’t hold wanter, in my opinion. And the 90 percent UM bet that I’m seeing around media circles doesn’t reflect the likelihood that this will be a tight game, decided by a bounce, a drop, a call, or more likely, a QB error.
