Last night in Columbus:

MSU 2
tOSU 1

DeRidder with 41 saves

So with it being 3-0 already UM anyone there have anything good to say?

It will be interesting to see how re-shuffled o-line fares with Arcuri at LT and Jarvis at RT with Bueter at RG.

The Pre-Snap Read
Michigan State vs Purdue

By Jim Comparoni
SpartanMag.com Publisher

West Lafayette, Ind. - The last time Purdue played a national Top 5 team, the Boilermakers stunned No. 2 Iowa, 24-7, in Iowa City.

Iowa turned out to be a one-dimensional team which peaked in September.

But Purdue (5-3 overall and 3-2 in the Big Ten) showed some things on that day that creates reason for concern for No. 3-ranked Michigan State this week. Enough concern that head coach Mel Tucker ramped up his level of intensity just a bit during his weekly press conference, just a small sample of the urgency he put on his team and staff this week. Things have been hot at the Skandalaris Center this week because the Spartans have become a cool national story, and Tucker doesn’t want the momentum to hit a wall. Michigan State hasn’t been 8-0 since 1966. Programs don’t get opportunities like this very often. Maybe Miami and Indiana didn’t turn out to be as good as we thought in the preseason, maybe Michigan was better than expected, maybe Michigan State didn’t deserve to beat Nebraska. That stuff doesn’t matter. What matters is Michigan State is 8-0, the hottest college football story in the country (outside of Georgia), and it can’t afford to let this house money be squandered away by the Spoilermakers.

The good news for Michigan State is that the Spartans harnessed a level of improvement last week, as Michigan State often does in the face of its rivalry game against Michigan.

The Spartans’ ground defense went from pretty good to very good against one of the top rushing outfits in the country.

MSU’s ground offense went from shaky in its previous outing at Indiana to excellent against the Wolverines, thanks not only to the recharged battery of Kenneth Walker III, but also smarter, more efficient run blocking from the offensive line and tight ends.

The blocks by tight ends Connor Heyward and Tyler Hunt during Walker’s 58-yard TD run in the second half were a high water mark for those two guys. They were good most of the day. (They were awful against Nebraska).

And during Walker’s TKO 23-yard TD run in the final minutes, Kevin Jarvis dominated Michigan’s second-string defensive tackle on that play, sealing him to the outside while right tackle AJ Arcuri folded inside and double-teamed a defensive tackle with precision.

The blocking on the 23-yard TD was all well and good, but Michigan State also needed Walker to trust the blocking and run to the smoke. Michigan State o-line coach and run game coordinator Chris Kapilovic said as great as Walker had played in the games leading up to last week, they wanted him to trust the blocking schemes a little more in some situations.

That was one such situation.

It was third-and-three, in the red zone. Even if Walker had been stopped on that play, the Spartans needed a yard or two to set up a choice of going for it on fourth down. That decision never had to be made as Walker hit the A-gap with quickness and forward intensity. The hole wasn’t super wide, but there was daylight when the smoke cleared, and he raced through it like a revolving door.

Michigan State looked pretty good on tape to the Wolverine defense, if they were honest with themselves. But that play, its precision and north-and-south attitude, and the blocking of those tight ends, were examples of a fine-tuning process which dropped on the Wolverines last week.

Also, let the record show that Michigan State was the stronger, better-conditioned team in the fourth quarter once again - repeating a trend that could and should make the Spartans more-equipped to protect leads in the late going, add to them, or forge comebacks.

As for areas that need tightening of the screws:

Michigan State’s pass defense has given up big figures all year in terms of total yardage, but not always in terms of yards per pass attempt, and usually not in terms of touchdowns.

Michigan not only put up big yards through the air, the Wolverines also notched three passing TDs.

The Spartans need to get back to being a decent pass defense in terms of yards allowed per pass attempt, and - more importantly - a quality pass defense in the red zone.

Last week, Michigan targeted safety Angelo Grose and victimized him when they were able to get him in one-on-one matchups in the slot in man-to-man. At SpartanMag.com, we have been highly complimentary of Grose’s physicality, intensity and ability to play the run. But dating back to preseason camp, and problems against Youngstown State, we said that teams would target No. 15 and he needed to prove he could withstand the attention.

No opponent made a concerted effort to target Grose until Michigan did last week, and it was nearly the foundation of a Wolverine victory. Even the incomplete pass into the end zone on third-and-three on Michigan’s next-to-last drive resulted in Grose being beat on a slot fade to the corner by a step and a half, only to end with QB Cade McNamara overthrowing his open target.

Now comes Purdue’s David Bell, the Big Ten’s most prolific pass receiver, and a Boilermaker passing attack that is mostly a ball-control, intermediate, possession type of passing attack, but one that is averaging 307 yards passing per game in Big Ten play, ranking No. 3 in the conference.

Screws need to be tightened in pass defense. Grose needs to get the best out of his quickness and maximize his knowledge and ability to anticipate.

MSU’s pass rush needs to be more effective than a week ago. And MSU’s offense can’t take a step backward from last week’s progress in the run game, and the offensive balance that has been the cornerstone for MSU’s historic (to this point) 8-0 start and reemergence into national relevancy.

I haven’t covered many teams that have been unbeaten in October. But one thing I noticed was that unbeaten teams received heightened challenges from each subsequent opponent. I saw it at Purdue in 1999, at Iowa in 2010 and at Nebraska in 2015. None of those were played during the ninth game of the season. The intensity, opportunity, and proneness will grow this weekend at Ross-Ade Stadium.


FINAL ANALYSIS FIRST

You’re fully aware of all those intangibles that have gained credence over time. Like last week, Michigan State was coming off a bye week, which likely aided the Spartans’ preparation and physicality. Same with Indiana the week before, against Michigan State. And Purdue had the bye week prior to its upset of Iowa (which doesn’t seem like much of an upset anymore). Now, Michigan State is battling the other age-old intangible, the let-down after a major breakthrough win.

Michigan State was good the week after playing Michigan in the Dantonio era. Now, Mel Tucker has to prove he’s good the week after the Michigan game. Last year, not so good, in a 49-7 loss at Iowa.

Tucker is saying all the right things, making all the right demands this week. We’ll see if it works against a Purdue team coming of a man-sized win at Nebraska, fully expecting to be the better team on Saturday against the Spartans.


KEY MATCHUP

Purdue offers a mixture of a precise, smart QB, a cast of decent receivers headlined by a terrific route runner in WR David Bell, an excellent pass-catching tight end (who might not be available), and tricky short-area route combinations that are difficult to cover.

Purdue QB Aidan O’Connell began last week’s game 16 of 19 for 107 yards. Not a lot of yards. Not a lot of incompletions.

He began the Wisconsin game 15-of-20, again for just 107 yards (but with two INTs sewn in).

O’Connell and Bell destroyed Iowa’s vaunted pass defense in a 24-7 victory over the Hawkeyes.

O’Connell was 30 of 40 for 375 yards with 2 TDs and 0 interceptions at Iowa.

Bell had 11 catches for 240 yards.

Those numbers are absurd, considering Iowa’s terrific pass defense.

However, Purdue did a good job early on of picking-apart Iowa’s zones. Iowa didn’t get heat on the QB. Iowa changed up and played more man-to-man than I’ve seen from them in awhile, maybe years, maybe ever, and Purdue - already in a confident rhythm - started nailing the Hawkeyes with Bell against that man-to-man. It was a nauseating experience for Iowa, and the Hawkeyes haven’t recovered.

So now we have a quality, ball-control style Purdue passing attack against a loose-screw Michigan State pass defense. That’s strength against weakness, right?

Well, I’m not sure MSU’s pass defense can be dismissed week after week as a weakness against all types of pass offenses. I think MSU’s pass defense has a chance to improve. Cornerback play has been pretty good, although chester Kimbrough got turned inside out in quarters coverage in the red zone on a good double move to the corner by Andrel Anthony for 17 yards. Kimbrough might have been caught keying the run a little too hard, with run-oriented UM QB JJ McCarthy on the field at that time.

Kimbrough was replaced by freshman Charles Brantley soon after that play.

Michigan made it 30-14 on a 19-yard pass (on third-and-9), to WR Mike Sanristil. On that play, Michigan State showed zone at pre-snap, but morphed into man-to-man. Michigan State brought a five-man rush. The pass rush didn’t get home, although Jacub Panasiuk (playing right DE rather than left DE) did beat the left guard and put a hand on QB McNamara as he threw. [Michigan State moved Panasiuk to the right side, and slanted him inside to go against UM’s worst pass protecter, LG Keegan, while Michigan State blitzed LB Haladay at the left tackle. Good plan, but it didn’t get home in time.]

With Michigan State in man-to-man, it put Grose on Sanristil in the slot. Michigan was making one read by this point in the game, in a lot of situations. They were reading the No. 3 WR (the third receiver from the sideline), if and when he matched up with Grose in man-to-man. Period.

(Same thing on the 43-yarder to Sanristil in the fourth quarter on third-and-long after Michigan State had tied the game at 30-30 and had all the momentum).

Could Michigan State have operated differently on that TD pass to Sanristil? There are always different choices and options.

On that play, Michigan State went with one CB to the left and one CB to the right. Michigan had three WRs to its left and only a TE (attached to the offensive line) to the right.

Michigan State could have put both CBs to the three-WR side in a “corners over” look. I haven’t seen Michigan State do that yet this year. Under Mark Dantonio, Michigan State would do that from time to time, but rarely. They would only do it if the opponent had a truly problematic matchup at WR.

On the TD pass to Sanristil, Michigan State kept one CB to the left and one CB to the right, even against the 3 by 1 formation (with the 1 being a tight end), because that approach almost always indicates zone defense. Why keep a CB (Ronald Williams) on the TE side? Almost certainly that CB is going to drop into zone coverage at the snap rather than “wasting” a CB on a TE, right?

Well, Williams has the size to matchup with a TE. Secondly, Michigan favors passing to the TE on third down, so you couldn’t fault Michigan State for showing zone, but then keeping a big CB on Michigan’s favorite third-down pass target, while morphing into man.

That’s all well and good, when you can bank on your safety (Grose) playing good man-to-man coverage on a WR on a crossing route if your blitz doesn’t get home.

Michigan State isn’t “there yet” in terms of having all boxes checked in pass defense.

Michigan State is a good team, deserving of being ranked No. 3 in the country at this point. But there are more tests to come, and at some point, teams with better passing attacks than Michigan are going to present MSU’s pass defense with severe examinations.

Purdue has a good passing attack. In some ways (QB reads and consistent accuracy), it’s a better passing attack than Michigan’s. However, Purdue does not have the run game threat that the Wolverines had, which preoccupied Kimbrough on that TD pass to Anthony. Purdue also does not have Michigan’s pass protection.

Michigan State is still searching for the best version of itself in pass defense. Michigan State needs better LB coverage, especially when being stretched horizontally to the sideline. MSU’s LBs need to be on time and more effective when asked to blitz. Quavaris Crouch was late on one expensive occasion last week. He has the capacity to be an excellent pass rusher. Those screws need to get tightened.

Those of you who don’t like the bend-but-don’t-break defense brand of defense Michigan State has played for most of the season. Well, on third-and-medium during Michigan’s first possession last week, Michigan State played man-to-man. A bend-but-don’t-break approach would have been to go with a two-deep zone and permit Michigan to throw underneath, hit them hard, challenge Michigan State to throw accurately, catch the ball and remain patient and disciplined for along drive. Instead, Michigan State went man-to-man. Not a bend-but-don’t-break approach. Michigan hit a little crossing route that got out for a 93-yard TD.

You sure you don’t like bend-but-don’t-break?

In this game against Purdue, you might see Michigan State return to its bend-but-don’t-break roots, not because Michigan State wants to play that way, but because Michigan State is still getting its pieces in order, even this late in the season, and for good reason because Williams, Kimbrough and gimpy Marqui Lowery are still in their first season as regulars at the major college level, and Brantley is still a rookie, and Grose is still new to his position. And Michigan State coaches are still weighing whether they can put Grose on an island vs slot receivers and play man-to-man.

A bend-but-don’t-break approach to pass defense challenges a passing attack to remain disciplined and patient. Purdue is very disciplined and patient.

The question is how much respect Michigan State pays to David Bell. Michigan State paid huge respect to WR Rambo of Miami back in September, and played soft along the sidelines to prevent him from getting deep. Michigan State gave up a lot of easy completions and yardage, but no big plays, and held Miami to 17 points.

MSU’s pass defense has grown since then. Michigan State hasn’t been as “careful” against other opponents, but maybe should have been more careful against the Wolverines. That being said, Michigan State had no film and very little scouting report on Anthony - and he was a major difference-maker in the first 40 minutes of that game.

So will Michigan State pay Rambo-like respect to Bell? Bell is more of a possession type receiver than Rambo. However, Bell WILL put a double move on you and attempt to get deep at some point. But he’s more of a quick-angle type of receiver.

Purdue will move Bell from the slot, to the wide man, from left to right. After losing to Wisconsin, Purdue head coach Jeff Brohm said he erred in not moving Bell around more against the Badgers. He also said he needed to incorporate more run game into the offense.

Purdue had been averaging less than 80 yards rushing per game prior to last week’s game at Nebraska. Then Purdue came out and ran the ball on three of its first four plays against Nebraska, and continued to be run-heavy with play selection for much of the first half. Purdue had a season-high 41 rushing attempts against Nebraska (for just 2.8 yads per carry), but rushed for 116 and established enough balance to get more burn out of their play-action game.

Despite being a pass-heavy team, Purdue will strangely operate out of an I-formation, under center, several times in each game. Brohm obviously wants to incorporate the I-formation, but in order to make that thing work in play-action passing, the Purdue run game MUST be a threat. However, it has not been much of a threat this year.

So if you’re Michigan State, coming off a terrific week of run defense, can you stop the Purdue running attack while playing with two deep safeties over the top? Or do you need to commit a safety to run defense like Michigan State did last week, while leaving the pass defense windows more dangerously open?

Michigan State will probably try all of the above. As to which one they stick with, and which one works, you will find out when I do. But like I said, Michigan State doesn’t have to remain a shaky pass defense team. They are still a work in progress in this area.

Will Michigan State be more apt to play “corners over” against Bell on third downs? That almost always indicates man-to-man, but Michigan State might be willing to concede that pre-snap tipoff in order to get a preferred cover man on Bell.

Or could Michigan State show “corners over” but drop into zone? That’s sophisticated stuff, which entails asking a CB to show man coverage in the slot but drop and become a safety, and all the assignments a safety has in zone coverage route recognition. Michigan State might not be “there” yet.

If Michigan State plans to play man-to-man at key junctures like it did last week, and allow Purdue to force a matchup against Grose, that doesn’t seem like it would be smart. Michigan State might do it from time to time, just to mix tendencies, and hope the pass rush gets home in time. But it wouldn’t seem advisable for Michigan State to stick with Grose vs the No. 3 WR when in man-to-man against four-WR formations throughout the day. Maybe here and there, but not all day. If you do it all day, then Purdue can force that match-up by formation, if you’re in man-to-man.

Basically, Michigan State has some weaknesses. Purdue has some strengths. Michigan State needs to mitigate opportunities for those strengths to match up against those weaknesses.

Or you can avoid all of that by sticking mostly to zone, like you did against Miami. But fans will need to stomach number from O’Connell which could start to look like 20-for-23 or things of that nature.

My guess is that Michigan State mixes it up. Michigan State will play more zone than last week, more bend-but-don’t-break than last week, but Michigan State won’t totally vacate man-to-man coverages. When Michigan State goes to man-to-man, the Spartans need the pass rush to get home. And I suspect we will see less man-to-man the further Purdue’s offense is away from the end zone. Might not be a good idea to play man-to-man when Purdue has it third-and-eight at their own 20-yard line. Bend. Bend. I suspect that’s the trek Michigan State will need to take.

A key component to this Purdue pass offense vs Michigan State pass defense is the Boilermaker tight end.

The tight end is Payne Durham, 6-5, 255, from Suwanee, Ga. He is excellent. He was honorable mention All-Big Ten last year.

He is the second-leading receiver on the team with 36 catches and four TDs, 50.8 receiving yards per game.

He had seven catches against Wisconsin in the first two-and-a-half quarters.

However, he went down with an injury late in the Nebraska game. Brohm spoke about injuries last night after practice.

"Payne, we're not optimistic on that one," said Brohm. “He's a tough son of a gun and he plays hard and he gives us everything that he has, but he's banged up. That would be a blow if he can't go. He's done a great job and is a consistent player."

The back-up TE, Garrett Miller, missed the Nebraska game. He has seven catches on the year. He is questionable for this weekend.

"Slight chance," said Brohm. "Garrett, we're trying to get back, so we'll see."

According to GoldandBlack.com, Purdue was without No. 3 tight end Kyle Bilodeau last week, but Brohm is hopeful the sophomore will be back. Another tight, junior Jack Cravaack, already is out for the year with a knee injury. Sophomore Paul Piferi--a former quarterback--is another option at tight end along with redshirt freshman walk-on Ben Buechel.


WATCH FOR THIS

Wisconsin handcuffed Purdue’s pass offense by dropping eight into coverage, especially on third down. O’Connell was frustrated by the lack of openings. Bell had six catches for only 33 yards against the Badgers, with a long of 10 yards.

O’Connell repeatedly had to check down to TE Durham (9 catches 112 yards with 1 TD and a long of 24).

Meanwhile, Wisconsin intercepted O’Connell three times, and had six sacks. Purdue rushed for a net of -13 against the Badgers.

Michigan State hasn’t been much of a rush three/drop eight defense under Mel Tucker. But if you see it this weekend, know that it has roots in Purdue’s loss to Wisconsin.


STATS AND BACKGROUND

Before we get into other matchups, let’s look at the numbers and results to this point:

Purdue results
W vs Oregon State, 30-21
W at UConn, 49-0
L at Notre Dame, 27-13
W vs Illinois, 13-9
L vs Minnesota, 20-13
W at Iowa, 24-7
L vs Wisconsin, 30-13
W at Nebraska, 28-23


* Coach Jeff Brohm is 24-28 in his fifth season at Purdue.

* After beating Iowa, Purdue moved up to No. 25 in the rankings. That was the first time Purdue had been ranked since 2007. But Purdue lost to Wisconsin and remains unranked. Beat Michigan State, and Purdue will be back in the Top 25 next week.



THE STATS

Big Ten Rankings (in conference games only)

Purdue Offense

No. 10 in scoring offense (22.9 per game)
(Michigan State is No. 3 (34.6))

No. 8 in yards per play
(Michigan State is No. 2)

No. 14 in rush yards per play (2.5)
(Michigan State is No. 2 at 5.4)

No. 8 in pass yards per play (6.3)
(Michigan State is No. 3 at 8.8)

No. 5 in third down conversion pct (42.1)
(Michigan State is No. 12 (35.8))


Purdue Defense

No. 5 in scoring defense (17.1)
(Michigan State is No. 9 (20.5))

No. 7 in yards allowed per play
(Michigan State is No. 8)

No. 8 in rushing yards allowed per play (4.0)
(Michigan State is No. 5 (3.4))

No. 8 in pass yards allowed per play (6.7)
(Michigan State is No. 7 (6.4))

No. 4 in third down conversion pct (33.3)
(Michigan State is No. 12 (39.9))
[Ohio State is No. 13, by the way, 43.7]


APPLES TO APPLES

Purdue’s QB is good, but I would give the nod to Thorne. I’m not sure I’m married to that opinion. Both are good. Thorne has had a wider array of WRs to work with, but now Thorne is likely to be without Jalen Nailor, who injured his hand last week. Thorne also has a much better run game to work with. So it’s hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison on these two.

On one hand, I am impressed with the way O’Connell goes through his reads, processes coverages, gets his back foot down, and the ball comes out, with zip and accuracy. When he completes passes, he looks better than your garden variety QB.

HOWEVER, he has thrown 8 INTs against 9 TDs. So although I like the assertiveness of his decision-making at times, there is some dirty bathwater.

Edge to Thorne, for now.

* Michigan State is much better at RB.

* Purdue’s top WR is different than Jayden Reed, but more prolific. Reed is likely a better deep threat. Slight edge to Bell in route running on the possession routes and intermediate routes. Those two are a little bit of an apples to oranges comparison. Both are very good.

* As for the other “other” WRs, Michigan State would have an edge here, if Nailor was available. Can Tre Mosley step up and deliver Nailor type of numbers? Can Montorie Foster step up and help? Those are key questions and unknowns. For now, I’ll call it a wash.

* Purdue is better at tight end when Payne Durham is available. If he doesn’t play, this is a wash, or an edge to Michigan State.

* MSU’s offensive line is better than Purdue’s although Purdue will surprise you at times with some decent run blocking.

Purdue’s LT was out last week. They moved their RT to LT, and the new RT was terrible in pass protection. Their regular LT is No. 69 Greg Long. If he is playing, their pass protection won’t be bad. If he isn’t playing, and Purdue has No. 68 at right tackle, then pass pro will be a big problem for Purdue on the right side vs Panasiuk all day.

LT 69 Long is supposed to play. He missed last week with a concussion.

* Overall, Michigan State’s o-line is better. Purdue looks shaky in pass pro at center.

* Purdue DE George Karlaftis MIGHT be better than Panasiuk, and Purdue’s other starting d-linemen are not bad, but MSU’s defensive line overall is better. And although Karlaftis is quite good, Panasiuk has just as much of a chance to have an impact on this game as Karlaftis.

* Purdue’s linebackers are decent. 43, the MLB, is a little slowish. Adam Decker type. Not bad. The other LB, 36, Alexander, is good, quick inside at 240 pounds.

MSU’s linebackers have been a little bit of a mixed bag. Too close to call.

* Purdue’s pass defense hasn’t faced many (any?) good passing attacks. Purdue has played four of the five worst passing teams in the Big Ten in terms of passing yards per game (Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin). So Purdue’s numbers are inflated.

I’m going to go with the eyeball test and the yards per pass attempt metric in saying that MSU’s pass defense is better than Purdue’s. That’s a wild departure from what total yards pass defense says (Purdue is No. 1 in the Big Ten in pass yards allowed per game and Michigan State is No. 14).

But Michigan State (No. 4) ranks ahead of Purdue (No. 10) in yards allowed per pass attempt in Big Ten games.

In overall games, Michigan State is No. 7 in the Big Ten in yards allowed per pass attempt and Purdue is No. 8.

Michigan State has the better pass rush.

Michigan State has better run-stoppers along the d-line.

MSU’s safeties and defensive backs support the run better than Purdue’s.

Purdue had major problems with the place kicker in each of the last two games, but he is 10-of-14 for the year, which is better than Matt Coghlin’s 10-of-15. I’ll go with Coghlin.

MSU’s net punting is No. 2 in the Big Ten; Purdue is No. 14.


DEALING WITH MICHIGAN STATE

The thing that has set Michigan State apart from its opponents thus far this season is the Spartans’ excellent balance on offense. Indiana was successful in containing Walker, although he was productive in the second half.

Michigan State learned from the Indiana game. Kapilovic said Indiana made Michigan State pause due to the Hoosiers’ pre-snap stemming and some of their post-snap movement, stunting, slanting.

Kapilovic said he had his o-line, especially center Matt Allen, enter the Michigan game with the mindset of trying to attack with MSU’s stuff, rather than trying to figure out what the opponent is in, and cat-and-mouse it.

Michigan surprised Michigan State with four down linemen to begin the game last week, as part of a 6-1 alignment, but Michigan State went with Kapilovic’s approach and just ran their stuff, with basic rules along the way, plus some new wrinkles sewn in later in the game.

Michigan State bashed Michigan for 199 yards rushing, with Michigan State tailbacks netting 205 yards rushing.


Michigan State’s run game is newly-energized. MSU’s o-line is confident and pumped up. Michigan State is supporting Walker for the Heisman, both in terms of marketing and teammate hype. But there’s a two-way street to that stuff. Purdue will be super-jacked to stop the Heisman candidate. That’s natural in college football. So can the Heisman candidate continue to produce when teams are stacked to stop him? Well, Michigan was stacked to stop him too. Michigan State met that challenge with relentlessness unknown to mankind.

Michigan State needs to keep the bus moving and execute another dropoff in West Lafayette.

Here’s The Deal: Purdue is a typically capable Big Ten defensive front. The d-end Karlaftis is good. I compare him to Kenny Willekes. Mel Kiper ranks him the No. 3 DE prospect in the country for the NFL Draft.

He’s good, but I wouldn’t say he’s a backfield wrecker. He’s not the every-down problem that Aidan Hutchinson was.

Purdue doesn’t have good depth on the d-line. Last week, second-string DE Jack Sullivan (99) played 32 snaps. He might have to start this week if first-stringer Kydran Jenkins can’t come back from a lower body injury sustained last week.

Purdue’s other reserve d-linemen played this many snaps against Nebraska: 16 (DT), 10 (DT), 2 (DE), 2 (DE).

Against Wisconsin, Purdue’s reserve d-linemen played this many snaps: 20, 20. That’s all. They had one reserve d-end and one reserve d-tackle.

If you take the starting DE (Jenkins) out of the equation, then Purdue has big, big problems in terms of defensive line depth.

Against Wisconsin, Purdue was sturdy for a little while, but got severely worn down against the run and caved badly in the second half. Wisconsin rushed for 290 yards. Wisconsin only had to attempt eight passes on the game (which is GREAT for Purdue’s seasonal pass defense stats).

Earier in the game, Purdue had a great goal line stand against Wisconsin, turning the Badgers away on first-and-goal at the 1-yard line in the 2Q. Purdue, with a six-man line, stuffed first down, then got a TFL on second down, then another TFL on an end around on third down.

If Michigan State commits to the run, and looks to establish its usual measure of balanced offense, the Spartans should find a pass defense that isn’t as good as the seasonal total stats, and the run game will pop into some daylight, increasingly so as the game progresses.

Purdue’s safeties take some faulty angles in run support and are not great tacklers. Purdue’s linebackers don’t have great speed sideline-to-sideline.

Purdue doesn’t not stay square as a unit and tackle with excellence the way Indiana does.

But Purdue will stem on their defensive line. They will change up their fronts, sometimes an odd 3-4 against Wisconsin.

MSU’s offensive front is more equipped to handle the changing looks this week than they were three weeks ago, and Walker has been retrained to mix in more north-and-south physicality than he displayed earlier in the season. I expect Walker’s Heisman candidacy to maintain momentum this week.


OTHER ITEMS

* Purdue’s center has struggled in pass protection a few times in the last two weeks. Could be a big day for Simeon Barrow.

* What Purdue does best, in my opinion, is hit you with triangle concepts in the passing game. That means three receivers getting to their spots quickly in one area of the coverage. They put little in-and-out stretches on you horizontally, with a high-low sewn in. If they get to their spots quickly, and the QB is on cue with them, it’s hard to stop the little pitch and catch. They hit and scatter to their areas quickly with some of their route combinations, and they move the chains with it, especially when incorporating Bell and the TE. It’s a solid little pass system.

* Purdue is reputed to try a lot of trick plays, but I didn’t see any (many) against Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska. They tried a flea flicker against Wisconsin but that’s hard to do when you don’t have a respectable run game.

* The run game was indeed respectable last week against Nebraska. So maybe that’s not the right word. It wasn’t great, but it wasn’t bad. Probably similar to Rutgers, although their top RB isn’t quite as good as Pacheco of Rutgers.

* Michigan State senior left tackle Luke Campbell struggled badly against Michigan. He has been good most of the year. In some games, he has been better than starting LT Jarrett Horst. Now, will Michigan State trust in going back to Campbell in relief, even with Karlaftis around? Good question.

* Purdue held Nebraska QB Adrian Martinez to 14 of 29 passing, but gave up 269 yards yards on those 14 completions. However, Purdue intercepted him four times.

* Nebraska QB Martinez was even sloppier than usual. He was a mess. Four INTs, including a pick-six.

* Nebraska rushed for 130 yards (4.5 per carry), 18 yards coming from the QB.

* Against Wisconsin, Purdue didn’t score in the second half. Wisconsin’s defense is good. Wisconsin is trending very hot right now in a Big Ten season that has had teams all over the map, up and down, with Michigan State being one exception so far.

* Purdue will use a pair of run-oriented QBs who come in and replace O’Connell for a handful of snaps per game. They will do speed option once or twice a game with those guys.


KEY PERSONNEL

QB 16 AIDAN O’CONNELL (6-3, 210, Sr., Long Grove, Ill.)

* Was a no-star recruit and walked on at Purdue. As a high school senior, completed 61 pct of his passes for 2,741 yards with 26 TDs and 7 INTs.

* Started the first three games last year, then missed the rest due to injury.

* Purdue is No. 3 in the Big Ten in pass offense at 307.1 yards per game, and No. 2 in conference games at 295.6 per game.

* O’Connell is a pocket passer, not very mobile. He stands back there, makes reads, is decisive, and accurate. Reminds me a little of former CMU QB Cooper Rush, another guy who had no scholarship interest coming out of high school. O’Connell might be a little more error-prone than Rush was.

* Was 34 of 45 for 233 last week at Nebraska with 2 TDs, 0 INTs, a long of 21 yards, and was sacked twice.

* Began the game last week 16 of 19 for 107 yards.

* His brain and arm seem to match well against Iowa. Was 31 of 50 for 282 with two TDs against Iowa last year and had a huge game against Iowa this year.

* Averaged 305.3 yards passing per game last year.

+ Excellent pass to Bell for 21 yards on a skinny post last week. Great job by O’Connell, play atcion out of the I formation, fakes the hand off, back foot plants, looks up Bell, ball comes out on time, ball in the air as Bell gets into his break, and zips it in there. Excellent route, excellent read and throw.

- After being sacked two times in the first half, O’Connell forced an out route to WR 29 Broc Thompson. He was well-covered and O’Connell left the ball inside a little too much.

* Was 15 of 20 in the first half against Wisconsin, but for just 107 yards with 2 INTs.

- His third INT was a third-and-11 against another 8-man coverage. The three-man rush started to get to him, he started to scramble and then he threw an INT on a Brett Farve shuffle attempt. That was with Purdue trailing 20-13 with 13:00 to play at the UW 30-yard line. Ouch. Tried to make a play, but that opened the negative dam.

* Wisconsin LB INT and 37-yard return to the 1-yard line late in the 1H out of an eight-man coverage.

* Purdue was competitive on the scoreboard up to that point thanks in part to a scoop and score TD by DE Karlaftis.

+ 10-yard TD pass to TE Payne Durham against Wisconsin. QB had time against a 3-man rush. Intricate route combination and TE popped wide open behind the LBs.

QB snaps vs Iowa:
O’Connell, 64 snaps, 40 passes
Plummer, 8 snaps, 2 passes, five QB rushes
Burton, 4 snaps, 1 pass, 3 QB rushes


WR 3 DAVID BELL (6-2, 205, Jr., Indianapolis Warren Central)

* Four-star recruit, ranked No. 95 in the nation. Also visited Indiana and Penn State.
* Leads the Big Ten in receiving yards per game at 112..3
* Is second in the Big Ten in receptions with 53 (trailing Penn State’s Jahan Dotson’s 60).
* Great route runner. Good at selling the deep one, and cutting on a dime.
* Will go with the possession and intermediate routes, then then out-and-up is coming in the second half.
* Beat Nebraska CB Taylor-Britt with a nice comeback for 13 yards, after selling the deep go. QB was right on time with an accurate ball.
* Brohm felt he didn’t move Bell around enough vs Wisconsin.
* Nine catches for 74 yards last week vs Nebraska.
* They like to use him as the No. 3 receiver. On third and four, if he gets a free release, they’ll run a little bitch for the first down yardage. He’s a possession receiver that way.
* Against Iowa, the Hawkeyes didn’t play as much zone as they normally do. I’m not sure if Purdue’s early success chased them out of zone or what. But they went man-to-man, and Bell burned them.
* No. 7-ranked WR NFL prospect by Mel Kiper.
* 11 catches, 240 yards against Iowa.
• Bell has surpassed 100 receiving yards in 14 of his 25 career games at Purdue. He has been under 100 yards in each of the past two games. Purdue pundits feel it's unlikely he will be held under 100 for a third straight week.
• Bell started his 2021 campaign with a 134-yard, eight-catch effort vs. Oregon State (Sept. 4) and a 121-yard, six-catch, three-touchdown outing at UConn (Sept. 11).
• Bell missed the Illinois (Sept. 25) game due to being in concussion protocol after the Notre Dame (Sept. 18) game.

WR 0 MILTON WRIGHT (6-3, 195, Jr., Louisville, Ky.)
* Was a four-star recruit, ranked No. 223 in the nation.

* Also had offers from Kentucky, Miami, Michigan State, Minnesota, Oregon, Ohio State, Alabama, Georgia.

* 32 catches, 3 TDs 39 yards receiving per game.

+ 3-yard TD last week on a mesh crosser wide open in the back of the end zone; Nebraska coverage bust.

* Is consistently between four and seven catches per game. His high yardage game of the year was 91 yards on six catches against Minnesota.


* Had 24 catches for 305 yards and two TDs last year.


WR 33 JACKSON ANTHROP (5-11, 190, Sr., West Lafayette)
* Two-star recruit, unranked. Purdue appears to be his only offer.

* 28 catches, 29 yards receiving per game.

* 6 cathes for 43 yards last week.

+ 11 yard gain on a slot out via the RPO last week in the 1Q.


RB 22 KING DOERUE (5-10, 205, Jr., Amarillo, Texas)

* Three-star recruit, No. 77 in Texas. Also visited Minnesota and Texas Tech.
* Hard-running guy, decently explosive.
* Rushed for 74 yards on 17 carries last week (4.4 per attempt) with a long of 13.
+ Nice 12 yard gain in the 2Q last week on a counter gap play with two pullers. Looked like a solid run team on that play.
* For the year, he has 363 yards rushing, 3.9 per, and 1 TD.


40 Zander Horvath (6-3, 230, Sr., Mishawaka, Ind.)

* Was their best RB earlier in the year. Injured his ankle, had surgery, returned last week.
* 11 carries for 25 yards last week (2.2 per).
* 2-yard TD run on third-and-goal last week. Purdue went to six offensive linemen on the play and zone-blocked it in out of shot gun.
* Has 113 yards on the year in three games played.


TE 87 PAYNE DURHAM (6-5, 255, Jr., Suwanee, Ga.)
* 5.5 Three-star recruit, also visited Duke and Missouri.
* Brohm makes it sound like he is doubtful for the game due to a late-game injury last week.
* Michigan State isn’t going to believe Brohm and they prepared expecting 87 to be out there.
* Second-leading receiver with 36 catches for 356 yards, 4 TDs, a candidate for first-team All-Big Ten honors.
* Good, reliable big target with pretty good athleticism. O’Connell likes to read short to long, and a lot of times Durham is open early.
+ 10-yard TD reception against Wisconsin. QB had time against a 3-man rush. Intricate route combination and TE popped wide open behind the LBs.
+ 24 yard catch on skinny route to the seam.
* Honorable mention All-Big Ten last year (16 receptions).
* If he’s available and his normal self, then this game becomes tougher for Michigan State. I could see his availability, or lack thereof, having a three-point impact on the point spread.

* Remember, if No. 69 in playing left tackle, then Purdue’s offensive line is much better off. If he’s out and No. 74 has to play LT, that means No. 68 plays RT. Panasiuk would dominate No. 68 (Cam Craig).


PURDUE EFENSE

DE 5 GEORGE KARLAFTIS (6-4, 275, West Lafayette, Ind.)

* Four-star recruit, rankd No. 137 in the nation. Also visited USC.
* No. 3-ranked WR NFL prospect by Mel Kiper.

* Second team All-Big Ten last year.
* His inside pass rush move isn’t as good as Aidan Hutchinson’s.

* Against the run, not as firm as Hutchinson or Kenny Willekes. But those are high comparisons. This guy is quite good.
* Has three sacks on the year.

* He will play as a stand-up DE from time to time.

* In 23 career collegiate games, Karlaftis has 25.5 tackles-for-loss and 12.5 sacks.

* Named a semifinalist for the Chuck Bednarik Award.

* Defeated a TE last week with a strong shoulder swipe, closed for a QB hit in the 2Q.

* Not the greatest discipline in run defense on one occasion last week. Didn’t squeeze down with a split flow block coming right at him, RB got out for a gain of 15 last week.



DE 44 KYDRAN JENKINS (6-1, 270, Fr., Louisville, Ga.)
* 5.6 three-star recruit, also had offers from Missouri, App State, Western Kentucky.

* Brohm said “not optimistic on that one” on Thursday about Jenkins’ availability for this game.

* Good looking player for the future.

* Stand up DE at times

* Sack in the 3Q after Nebraska’s crappy LT 69 got beat.

+ Solid job vs the run at the point of attack vs a TE, setting the edge for no gain, but was injured on the play in the 3Q. Lower body injury. Helped off the field with a hobble.

+ Sack in the 3Q against Wisconsin in the third quarter, defeated the LT with an outside move that didn’t seem special, but he his legs were churning.


* 90 Lawrence Johnson and 58 Deen Branson are good, sturdy DTs inside, but they don’t get any relief.


SAM 6 JALEN GRAHAM (6-3, 200, Jr., Detroit Cass Tech)
* 5.6 three-star safety prospect, ranked No. 17 in Michigan. October commitment.

* Also had offers from Boston College, Cincinnati, Indiana, Iowa State, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Pitt, Missouri, Rutgers, Syracuse.

* Blasted the blocking RB on a pass rush last week for a QB pressure in the 1Q but missed the sack. Good power through the block attempt.

• Returned an INT 45 yards for a touchdown. Dropping into zone, it was a simple INT against double slants to tie the game at 7-7. Error by QB Martinez.

+ His second INT, again just sitting in zone and Martinez was getting heat from Karlaftis, getting his jersey tugged, and Martinez attempted a Brett Farve backhand shovel. Ill-advised by Martinez.

• Graham's performance at Nebraska, which included two interceptions, helped him earn Big Ten Conference Defensive Player of the Week, announced on Monday, Nov. 1


MLB 43 KIEREN DOUGLAS (6-2, 240, Sr., Pickerington, Ohio)

* Average to below-average lateral quickness.

* Transfer from Army.

* Adam Decker type of MLB. Gritty, pretty dependable, not the most athletic.


WILL 36 JAYLAN ALEXANDER (6-1, 240, Sr., Hoffman Estates, Ill.)

* Was a 5.5 three-star recruit. Had MAC offers.

* Purdue’s leading tackler.

- Not a great job by Alexander vs a pull guard while safety Grant tried to scrape over the top for the tackle. Alexander not great, and safety Grant missed the tackle, Nebraska RB got outside for a gain of 35.

+ Good job reading gaps and arriving with some force. Solid stick on the Wisconsin RB on an inside run in the 1Q.

+ 10 tackles against Iowa.

* Quality ILB.

+ TFL loss of four on run blitz against Wisconsin.


CB 1 DEDRICK MACKEY (5-11, 190, Sr. Miami)
* 5.7 three-star recruit. Also visited Cincinnati and South Florida
- Allowed 43 yards on a deep post last week vs off man-to-man. Got caught looking back for the ball too early.

S 10 CAM ALLEN (6-1, 195, JR., Bluefield Va.)
* 5.6 three star recruit, No. 20 in Virginia.
* Also had offers from mid-majors and Virginia.
* Honorable mention All-Big Ten last year.
* Pretty good lateral movement, dropped what would have been a pick six short route last week.
- Missed a tackle on a slot out route at the 10-yard line, allowing a 16-yard TD last week.
* Pretty good hitter.
- Was beaten on a deep post by 5 yards late in the 1H last week but QB Martinez overthrew the WR by a step. Should have been a demoralizing 52-yard TD at intermission and a 24-14 Husker lead.

On that play: very stupid job by Purdue to have an extra man in the box and a second run-sniffing safety up at the LB level after the snap, and essentially a zero coverage without a blitz, when Nebraska had it first-and-10 at the -47 with :20 left in the half. Had to have been an assignment error. No way they’re that stupid.

- Missed tackle on a safety blitz, resulted in 20-yard TD run for Wisconsin.


S 4 MARVIN GRANT (6-2, 190, Soph., Detroit King)
* Was a four-star recruit, No. 138 in the nation, No. 6 in Michigan.
* No opinion, other than his failed scrape on a 35-yard run last week.
* Played as a reserve last year.

CB 7 JAMARI BROWN (6-3, 205, Jr., Sunrise, Fla./Pampano Beach Ely)
* 5.6 three-star recruit, originally signed with Kentucky over Auburn, Illinois, Pitt, Oregon, South Carolina and others.
* Started three games at Kentucky in 2019. Hampered by a hamstring last year at Kentucky.
* No opinion.


ADD IT ALL UP

The shaky Michigan State that was a bit mistake-prone against Rutgers and Indiana would not win this game at Purdue. You have to assume that Michigan State grew during its preparation for Michigan, and it’s success against the Wolverines, and in the preparation in coming out of that game.

Teams are still developing, or regressing, even in the final one-third of the season. QB McNamara showed no signs of being able to read the middle of the field and deliver like he did last week. We knew he had the arm talent, but had not demonstrated the ability to read and deliver accurately on intermediate routes. And we didn’t know anything about Andrel Anthony.

Also, we hadn’t seen the Michigan State o-line block that intricately, and even Heisman Trophy candidate Kenneth Walker III continues to polish his game, with more inside aggression.

Now, Michigan State needs Tre Mosley and Montorie Foster to take it up a notch in the expected absence of Jalen Nailor.

MSU’s pass rush was quiet last week. It’s imperative that that group makes noise this week, and upset the pocket and rhythm of a quality passer like O’Connell.

Michigan State won’t stand pat in pass defense. They will likely look for ways to cover for Grose, and prevent him from getting into matchups in the slot against Bell. What that looks like, I don’t know. Will Michigan State drop eight like Wisconsin? Will Michigan State revert to bend-but-don’t-break softness along the sidelines like they did against Miami? I don’t know. But I wouldn’t expect as much man-to-man as last week.

Purdue will try to establish the run like it did last week at Nebraska. Can Michigan State stop it with the standard number while keeping two safeties back? If so, good step toward victory for Michigan State.

Will TE Payne Durham be available for Purdue? He’s a very important No. 2 man for O’Connell.

Overall, it’s a good, competitive Big Ten football game with College Football Playoff and Heisman Trophy implications on the line for Michigan State. Purdue will be jacked, but Michigan State’s balance on offense, and depth on defense gives the Spartans an edge.

If Purdue’s d-end Jenkins (44) can’t play and you see 99 starting instead, realize that Purdue’s thin d-line will be prone to wearing down against the run in the second half. A big second half on the ground from Walker is probable.

Purdue has forced some turnovers this year, but I don’t think Thorne will be prone to the same type of mistakes.

MSU’s conditioning edge in the fourth quarter seems to be a real, consistent thing, and it’s a good trump card to carry into the fourth quarter.

Purdue has great program history of pulling upsets like this one. Michigan State has so much to lose, and Purdue is a pretty good team that will be jacked up to shock the nation. But MSU’s tunnel vision to this point in the season is a good sign, as are MSU’s relative good health and depth, and an overall edge in offensive balance and athleticism and physicality. It should combine to provide the proper firewall in a difficult, dangerous test.

Start a good trend.

Nice little feature by SpartanMag's Ricardo Cooney:

Written by Mark Feather, a veteran sportswriter from the Lansing area whom I was happy to get in contact with in recent days and bring him to the SpartanMag world. We look forward to great contributions and insight from Mark Feather as we move forward.

Purdue is chomping at the bit for shot at Michigan State. Here is my Notebook from Brohm's presser today.

Pre-Snap Read: Michigan State vs Michigan​

By Jim Comparoni
SpartanMag.com

WARNING: This piece includes content that is complimentary to Michigan football. Reader discretion is advised.

(i.e.: don’t blame your friendly correspondent).

East Lansing, Mich. - I’m not here to play cartoons. This isn’t the Disney Network. We don’t guarantee happy endings.

Some of you get mad at me when you think I’m giving the opponent too much credit. I wish I could write a George Lucas script for you, but I cannot.

The margin or error for Michigan State in this game is tighter than I expected it to be when I began researching this thing. You will all agree that Michigan State had a lot of trouble against Indiana with blocking, penalties, and an occasional gap issue on defense. Michigan State was good enough to beat what I thought was a decent Indiana team on that day.

Michigan State had its stains against Rutgers, too, but found offensive explosives against a slowish, leaky secondary.

You will agree that Michigan State was fortunate to steal victory against Nebraska. You will remember that Michigan State didn’t get a first down in the second half of that game, but harnessed victory with great special teams play.

Michigan State has a great record and has had a great season to this point, but you will agree they have not been a great team.

Michigan has had some shaky moments, but not as many. Michigan had a bad second half against Rutgers. That was five weeks ago and doesn’t figure into my analysis of this game very much, other than the fact that QB Cade McNamara seemed to play worse when the game grew tighter. That right there is the one thing I would be worried about if I were a Michigan fan in this game.

Michigan fought back from a tie score and pulled out victory at Nebraska by leaning on its run game in the final minutes and basically didn’t let McNamara attempt a challenged pass in the late going.

That being said, McNamara looked improved coming out of the bye week. Michigan let him throw some deep play action passes early in the game last week, two things that the offense had not accentuated to that point. He didn’t connect all the time, but it loosened things up for Northwestern’s defense and seemed to dial McNamara in a little bit.

Michigan tries to keep things safe and easy for McNamara on third-and-long, and they’ve survived most of those situations. Last week, on a third-and-11, he delivered an 11-yard out route to WR Cornelius Johnson to the wide side of the field against a bailing cover-three CB.

It was good, basic QB play, but one - especially on third down - I had rarely seen him make. He has had other deep shots that have gone for big-gainers, sometimes in fluke fashion. But this was a good, pure QB play.

He threw the same route to Johnson on a 12-yard out to the wide side of the field against bailing cover-four in the 3Q against Nebraska.

Both times, he read a bailing CB, and delivered on some arm talent. He needs to show he can make more difficult reads elsewhere. I think he is improving, but he’s still on training wheels.

He has been the subject of harsh criticism in Ann Arbor. Thanks to the miracle of social media, Michigan fans have made life hellish for QBs in previous years. You can bet he’s heard the criticism. Tom Izzo says he has to play defense against social media for his kids every day.

“How can it not affect you?” Izzo says to writers when talking about the impact of negativism against athletes on social media.

He would know better than we do.

And is McNamara hearing that kind of noise? Has it affected his play? If so, he may feel the pressure become more severe in a game like this.

If you’re Michigan State, you need him to struggle with the moment. Meanwhile, Michigan has a serviceable back-up QB ready. That’s an edge. Michigan State’s status with Anthony Russo is unknown after his legal problems in the past two weeks. That’s a minor edge to Michigan which could become game-changing major in an instant.

As for McNamara, he has played in a hostile afternoon environment at Wisconsin against a good, hard-hitting defense. He has played in a hostile night environment at Nebraska.

He played better in the earlier and middle stages of the Nebraska game than he did late. His two most important passes against the Huskers were a pair of delay-release passes to the tight end over the middle on third-and-long. That’s basically a trick play concept. Michigan didn’t want him dropping and reading and making an intermediate throw against a problematic but fading Nebraska defense.

Nebraska was stupid enough to drop its linebackers too deep in zone coverage on both plays against a QB who almost never throws intermediate routes over the middle. They left the area vacated for the delayed release pass to the tight end not once, but twice.

And this was after Michigan had shown a propensity to attempt that pass on third down on two occasions against Wisconsin. Wisconsin wasn’t as stupid with its linebacker coverage and stopped both third down passes in that game.

But Michigan was smart to probe Nebraska’s stupidity on those plays, and moved the chains in crucial situations without asking its shaky quarterback to do anything dangerous. He moved the chains with two short passes in those situations that a high school quarterback could have thrown. Credit to Michigan scheming in those situations.

Against a quality team, at some point, McNamara is going to be forced to make difficult reads and intermediate throws. Good teams will stop the run, take away the short hitches that he has relied upon in other games, bring pressure against what has been a good pass pro offensive line, and heat up the griddle for a questionable quarterback.

Is Michigan State enough of a quality team to made McNamara pass those type of tests? Can Michigan State contain/slash/stop the run? Can Michigan State get pressure with four or five against a Michigan passing game that has allowed only two sacks all season?

Michigan’s pass protection has been successful to this point partly because Michigan does a good job of staying out of passing situations. When Michigan does get into third and long, it is careful in what it asks its quarterback to do. He’s rarely in the pocket making more than one read in long-yardage situations. Plus, their pass protection has been pretty good on the edges, although occasionally leaky in the interior.

Michigan is not great. But they are better than I expected them to be when I started studying these games.

They have been in tight games in the third quarter against Wisconsin and Northwestern, only to pull away with big margins of victory. The Nebraska game became tight, in part, because Nebraska was able to spring a couple of trick misdirection pass plays for touchdowns. That’s cute and all, but I would have been more bullish about MSU’s chances if Nebraska had gotten into the end zone by bludgeoning its way downfield time after time. That wasn’t the case.

The Rutgers game was so long ago that some of the elements are not applicable to this one. Rutgers found success with a QB power read option play that Michigan was uncomfortable defending, perhaps in part due to the pro background of its new offensive coordinator.

Nebraska scored a late TD inside the 5-yard line with a read option QB keeper that was similar to Rutgers’ staple play, but Nebraska didn’t attempt to replicate that exact play all that often.

Michigan State has some zone read option elements to its offense, but it’s not a play Michigan State runs more than two or three times a game, and it’s something Michigan State has struggled to execute in key short yardage plays when they have gone to it (see the fourth-down stoppage at Nebraska, and the fumbled exchange on third-and-short at Indiana which almost blew a field goal opportunity for the Spartans).

Michigan has been in tight games in the third quarter against some of these opponents largely because the Wolverines haven’t been explosive on offense in the first three quarters. But they have been dominant in their own way in those games in many aspects outside of the scoreboard. Michigan’s blowout victories have been slow drip blowouts. Michigan wins play after play. But it takes awhile for a comfortable leads to materialize due to the lack, thus far, of big-play explosiveness in the first half of games. But the wearing-down process of Michigan’s run game, and Michigan’s success, for the most part, in stopping the run, and playing good defense on third down, has eventually handcuffed these opponents.

Michigan fooled around and got into serious trouble against Nebraska. But at the line of scrimmage, Michigan was the better team most of the night, and let that one get close due to some clever scheming by the Huskers on a few key occasions.

Michigan State will need clever scheming in this game. Michigan State will need to have found a vast level of improvement during the bye week. And quite frankly Michigan State will need to play its best game of the year to win this game.

Based on the body of work and modes of operation of each team thus far in the season, if Michigan plays its B-game and Michigan State plays its B-game on a neutral site, I would expect Michigan to win, maybe by 10 or more.

However, in a rivalry game with as much emotion and animosity as this one carries, when playing at Spartan Stadium, Michigan State can get revved into an A-plus game. We’ve seen that scenario in the past. But, like Mel Tucker says, what has happened in past games will have no impact on this one. I would agree with that, aside from the human element of hatred and ultra focus which usually runs deeper for Michigan State in this game than it does for Michigan.

Michigan’s embarrassing loss to Michigan State last year, which short-circuited the Wolverines’ season and eventually led to Jim Harbaugh’s players quitting on him in the loss to Wisconsin in 2020 and might have cost him his job if their games against Ohio State and Iowa had been played, probably still resonates with the Wolverines today. That will help Michigan be more primed for this game than was the case last year.

I’ve been surprised and impressed that Harbaugh has managed to keep the players and team together for 2021. Coming into this year, I thought there was a chance that Harbaugh would have lost his team again by this point in the season, but I was completely wrong about that (so far), and you’ll hope that I’ll be completely wrong about my expectations for this game.


FINAL ANALYSIS FIRST

I’ve been wrong plenty of times over the years and you’ll be hoping I’m wrong in what I see for this matchup between No. 8 Michigan State and No. 6 Michigan in the biggest tilt between the two bitter rivals in decades.

I think this is a more difficult game for Michigan State than the 4-point spread would suggest, more difficult than one might think in a Top 10 battle between unbeaten teams. (I think the point spread is still 4. Someone mentioned to me at the beginning of the week that that’s what it was. I don’t go looking for point spreads and don’t pay attention to them. Usually, I don’t want to know what the point spread is).

Even in a game like this, with both teams undefeated, we’re supposed to throw the record books out the window, because it’s a rivalry game. I suppose that’s the right thing to do.

But if Michigan State wins this game, the Spartans will deserve great credit for overcoming an improving, physical Michigan team that bosts a strong, diversified running attack and a varied, talented, structurally-sound defense.

I’m not sure which game has been MSU’s best performance of the year so far. Maybe the Northwestern game. Michigan State will need to play much better than they did that night in order to win this game.

Sometimes things like that can happen in this rivalry, especially at Spartan Stadium. If Michigan State gets revved, the home crowd in this rivalry, when it’s played in East Lansing, can lift good players to great things. Michigan State is going to need some of that pixie dust in this game, and I’ve seen it happen before.

By now, you’re already ticked at me for making this sound like Vanderbilt against the ’85 Bears.

Michigan State is confident, crazed with enthusiasm, and packs talent at QB, WR, RB to go along with a quality defense.

The Spartans have already shocked me twice this season. Michigan State was far more explosive and buckled-down for its season opener against Northwestern than I expected. And then Michigan State was gritty, physical and (once again) explosive in taking the Hurricanes to the deep end and drowning them in Miami’s 90-degree heat and pulverizing humidity. I didn’t expect this team to have that skill, talent and determination in them.

But the Spartans are a one-minded, tunnel-visioned team. That’s dangerous.

Playing at home, in this horrible rivalry. That’s dangerous.

Payton Thorne has been good this season. Michigan State needs him to play like we don’t know he can. Similar to the way Bill Burke upped his game in 1999, and Tony Banks in 1995, and Rocky Lombardi last year.

Why must Thorne play “like we don’t know he can”?

Michigan’s pass defense is quite a bit better than I expected it to be when I started cramming their film this week. It’s tricky, it’s talented and they do a lot of shape-shifting and disguising of coverages. They do it with speed, and they do it behind a problematic pass rush.

Michigan’s pass defense is especially good on third down. They gave up a couple of screen passes on third down in the second half against Northwestern, but those were skin-of-the-teeth ploys that happened to work two times, but didn’t work the third time they tried it.

Wisconsin’s bad quarterbacks really struggled on third down against Michigan.

If Thorne is completing passes on third-and-long against Michigan, do not underestimate that accomplishment. Having time to throw on third down will be a problem. Determining which players are coming on the pass rush will be a problem. Getting them blocked will be a problem. Figuring out what coverage Michigan is in on third down, in less than two seconds, will be a problem.

Film study, calm nerves and an NFL level of ability to process information and coverages in an instant, along with great route running and play design by Michigan State, will be necessary in order for Thorne to have a chance to probe small windows and find open receivers on third down. And from there, he still needs to be accurate.

If he’s successful on third down, don’t underestimate the job he, the o-line and the coaches will have done. That part is going to be difficult. Maybe he can do it. He’s been excellent this year. He’s just beginning his metamorphosis at the position. Maybe he is ready to do that, but we don’t know for sure. Hence, he needs to take that next step in his metamorphosis and … play like we don’t know he can.

If he’s successful, and the pass game is successful on third down, and Michigan State wins this game, you are all free to send hateful emails to me.

But understand this: If Michigan State gets that done, then don’t underestimate how well this Michigan State team will have had to play to achieve it. If Michigan State can win this game, it will indeed rise near the Top 5 in the polls, and if Michigan State is able to win this game then, for the first time, I will have to begin to believe that the Spartans are capable of STAYING within the Top 5 in the polls for another few weeks. As of now, I don’t think Michigan State has that ability. But we’re still learning about them and they have proven me wrong before.


A QUESTION OF RELIABILITY

After studying Michigan’s slow drip blowout victories over Wisconsin and Northwestern, in addition to the win at Nebraska, I went back and rewatched the Michigan State vs Indiana game one more time. Credit to Michigan State for a gritty victory that day. Great job by the place kicker, and red zone defense. But Michigan State was messy the last time we saw the Spartans play. MSU’s defense was pretty good, but Michigan’s defense is steadier and more reliable at this point.

I’m sorry if this information makes you angry. I come in peace. I realize that writing these things could possibly cost our web site some subscribers. I’ve been disappointed to see how much some of our readers get angry with me when I compliment an opponent. I don’t understand that mindset, but it exists. And I’m writing this piece today with a feeling of risk, like I know people are going to be angry at me for complimenting Michigan, and there is risk in knowing that I could end up being wrong and looking like an idiot.

I’m not predicting that Michigan will win. I don’t usually do predictions. But my expectation, based on the body of work thus far, is that Michigan State will have a hard time stopping the run for four quarters and Michigan State will have a hard time being the team that can put McNamara in position to do difficult uncomfortable things in order to win.

MSU’s run game has been explosive at times against weaker opponents this year, but had trouble getting going against Nebraska and Indiana. You’ve heard that portion of the analysis by everyone this week, and there is some merit to it. I will be surprised and impressed if Michigan State is able to pop off more than 160 yards rushing. I’m expecting something under 120. That’s based on the body of work so far this season.

However, the body of work can change in this game when you get an 85-man football army armed with the type of focus and hatred that only the winged helmets can bring out in them. Sometimes, that’s not enough to win, but it’s usually enough to help Michigan State raise its level of physicality, focus and effort to a point that Michigan sometimes has trouble matching. Sometimes it is enough to pull an upset. And if Michigan State wins this game, it won’t be regarded as an upset, but it should. If the point spread is still 4, I think it needs to be more than that. But the rivalry factor probably has something to do with that.

Michigan fans and apologists have tried to discredit MSU’s accomplishments against Michigan in recent years by saying, backhandedly, that this game is MSU’s Super Bowl. Well if that’s true, then tell me what is Michigan’s Super Bowl? They can’t even find Indianapolis.

Michigan hasn’t beaten an AP Top 15 team on the road since Notre Dame in 2004. How long ago was that? A week after that game, Notre Dame had that 17-point comeback in the rain against Drew Stanton, John L. Smith and Michigan State. That’s how long ago it was, if you can remember that night. Not a great Notre Dame team. Long time ago.

But that information, like Tucker says, will have no impact on this game. However, the fact remains that Michigan has been woefully inept against good teams on the road for years. It’s gotten to the point that even highfalutin Michigan fans and followers who have been prone to over-estimating their team on an annual basis are fearful that the Wolverines have no robe again this year. They seem more quiet and worried than usual. That’s the effect the 0-17 streak on the road against AP Top 15 teams can have, even with this group of ostriches. They’re hoping they can pull their heads out of the sand by 4 pm on Saturday and be granted a stay of execution until their annual crucifixion against Ohio State. This time, Michigan may have a better record than usual when it loses to Ohio State.

Of course, I could be wrong. Michigan could blow this game again, and it might throw Wolverine nation back into panicked coach search desperation again. Based on how well Michigan has played this year, that would be the wrong reaction on their behalf. They need to continue to stay the course with Harbaugh, but I’m not sure they will see it that way if Michigan loses this game, and to Ohio State, and possibly to Penn State, and a bowl game. They’ll be on the ledge if that happens. That would be interesting television, but I don’t expect all those things to happen, this year. Michigan has been pretty solid.



GAME WITHIN THE GAME

As I rewatched the inner workings of these games, I arrived at the same analysis Ron Armstrong imparted upon us earlier this week during our SpartanMag LIVE! conversation. He talked about the importance of winning on first down. That’s often a cliché that’s important for most football games. But after studying Michigan further, I have a better understanding of his point. To me, winning on first down means staying away from getting into dreadful third down situations against Michigan.

These are fairly obvious football axioms, but they are crucial for Michigan State in this game. Be productive on first down. Stay out of third-and-longer than 5.

It seems to me that it’s a lot easier to move the ball through the air against Michigan on first-and-10 than it is on third-and-7. That’s not rocket science.

In the past two seasons, Michigan State has been aggressive and creative on the first play of each drive under Tucker and offensive coordinator Jay Johnson. It seems clear that Michigan State has a list of plays on p-and-10 (the first play of each drive), that they trot out specifically for those situations. Opponents are probably aware of it by now, and on alert for un-scouted looks on the first play of each drive. But Michigan State needs to score blows on those first down plays, and other first down pass plays, all day. Thorne, through the air, on first down, needs to be a positive element for Michigan State.

If you wait until it’s third-and-long, the table is going to tilt against you. Michigan’s third down pressures and coverages are excellent. Stay out of third-and-long.

You’re more apt to get clean reads and a clean pocket on first down against Michigan.

Michigan State has some dice-shooters, and some explosive connectors. They’ll let it fly. Jay Johnson has impressed me with his aggressive creativity and coolness. He and the Spartans will put pressure on Michigan, as they did last year. Michigan will have some tests to pass in order to get this done.


THE MACRO

In the broadest terms, if you’re an outsider looking at these two teams, what do we have here?

We have two unbeaten teams, each of which has yet to defeat a good, complete opponent.

Michigan hasn’t been tested by a quality passing attack.

Michigan State hasn’t been tested by a quality running attack.

Those are two huge variables, this late in the season.

That being said, MSU’s passing attack is good, and occasionally explosive, but maybe not good enough to be considered a legitimately strong aerial game. My opinion on that could change by 4 pm on Saturday. Maybe MSU’s passing attack is ready to carry the day, establish a level of balance and surpass anything Michigan is able to put on the scoreboard. That’s possible. I’ll need to see it to believe it. MSU’s passing game has hit some skids against Nebraska and Indiana.

Michigan’s running attack is in fact legitimately strong. Michigan’s running attack is the most consistent element in this game. When Michigan gets its run game going with pin-and-pull gap plays, it becomes an avalanche of physicality. I’ve seen respectable, hard-hitting, fundamentally-sound defenses take on blocks correctly against Michigan, hit hard, and still have a lot of trouble keeping Michigan from getting its ground gainers of 4, 6, 4, 3, 5 yards.

Wisconsin held Michigan to 2.5 yard per carry and did not allow the Wolverines to have a ground gainer of more than 8 yards. But Wisconsin’s ground defense is much better than MSU’s. And when Michigan really needed tough yardage on the ground in that game, Michigan was able to get it.

Michigan State hits hard. Michigan State needs to force some fumbles, maybe via the sack, maybe via helmets on the football at the end of some of Michigan’s runs. But Michigan has withstood hard hitting from Wisconsin without fumbling. Michigan State has to hope that trend ends. Michigan State needs to steal some possessions.


GAME WITHIN THE GAME PART II

There are going to be great, meaningful, hard-spirited collisions all over the place. This is a pair of programs - not merely a pair of teams but a pair of programs - driven to win viscious collisions away from the ball, where the collisions are the most important.

Mel Tucker implores his team, as Nick Saban does, to hit and hit and hit and be the last team hitting, make the opponent quit. Tucker and Saban both tell their men that the team plays the hardest the longest will win.

That’s a great, grim mindset to have. Michigan State has been of that mettle this year, so far.

Just because that’s MSU’s mindset and program philosophy doesn’t mean Michigan State will successfully carry out that mission in every single game. But that mindset, and the training that went with it, certainly helped carry Michigan State against Miami and Indiana, and probably Nebraska, although Michigan State was losing at the line of scrimmage for most of the second half of that game.

Harbaugh has talked in the past about wanted his team to carry out a level of physicality, to a cruel extreme. Cruel. That’s a word he used to use at Stanford. I’m not sure if he still uses it, but that’s the goal. Nothing unclean about it. Just physical. He wants a team that can impose it’s will. Some of his teams have gotten away from that a little bit on offense (speed in space), but not this year. They are the closest things he has had to some of his good Stanford teams.

Michigan State has earned so much respect with its ability to battle for 60 minutes in every game this season. You’ll hate me for saying this, but Michigan also packs heavyweight punching power for 15 rounds. The style of Michigan’s running game, with its pulling blockers, and its mobile car bombs known as tight ends, are going to present MSU’s 4-2-5 defense with frontal force like Michigan State hasn’t seen.

The problem is that as your defense is absorbing these point-of-attack blows from Michigan, even when you’re hard-hatting your way to “limiting” them to gains of 2, 3, 4 yards, your armor softens. Cal Haladay and Quavaris Crouch are physically tough. Crouch is a force, especially when he’s correct. Darius Snow is a good thumper for a nickel back, or any back. But Wisconsin and Nebraska had extremely tough guys too. More of them. And they softened too.

And as you soften, Michigan’s rotation of tailbacks gets better. They’re hard to tackle. One is quick and tough (Corum). The other one is extremely tough, and deceptively quick (Haskins). They get harder and harder to tackle as the game goes along.



GAME WITHIN THE GAME PART III

Can Michigan State keep Michigan’s ground game contained? That’s the main question everyone is pondering this week, and it’s the x-factor that will go further toward determining the outcome of this game than any other. It’s not THE factor that will determine the outcome, but it’s the chief factor.

Michigan State is allowing just 3.3 yards per carry this year, good for No. 5 in the Big Ten. Not bad.

Michigan is ranked No. 5 in the nation in rushing yards at 253.2 yards per game.

Michigan’s ground attack wasn’t great against Wisconsin or Rutgers, but I was impressed with the way Michigan rushed for 204 yards against a quality Nebraska defensive front, which has been losing its fizz since the Michigan State game.

I was impressed with the way Michigan was able to saddle up the run game in the fourth quarter against Nebraska and stage the game-tying field goal drive ON THE GROUND at a time when Michigan coaches didn’t seem to trust QB McNamara, and for good reason. Michigan did the same on its TD drive earlier in the quarter.

MSU’s ground defense, statistically, has been pretty good this year. But the Spartans haven’t faced a ground attack like this. I’m not saying it’s a great ground attack, but it’s a good one, a varied one, which uses tight end blocking with uncommon skill, power, mobility, agility and effectiveness.

The tight end collisions vs Michigan State defenders will be colossal. Michigan State has some good edge defenders, but it’s hard to defeat those blocks. The TE merely wants a stalemate. The Michigan tight ends are very good at getting stalemates, which lead to daylight, and Michigan has good running backs who make use of that daylight. And then those running backs are very good at churning, wiggling and blasting for the extra, fall-forward two yards (or more) at the end of each run.

Looking or a game within the game? Watch the final split second before the whistle of each Michigan running play. They get those extra four or five feet at the very end of a play that turn a 2-yard run into a 4-yard run. Then they do it again. And pretty soon it’s third-and-two instead of third-and-five. That’s part of their secret sauce. I hate to say it, but that’s part of what made Mike Hart pretty good, too. And he’s their RB coach.

Michigan at times will push the pile, and benefit from a slow Big Ten whistle. Michigan State will be prepped for this. Michigan State can’t afford to have leftover defensive players standing and watching at the whistle while the pile moves, as Nebraska, Wisconsin and Northwestern were caught doing a few times. Michigan State will be prepped to rally to the pile and gang tackle “through the echo of the whistle,” as Tucker likes to say. Michigan State will show up with more vigor in this area of the game than any opponent Michigan has faced. The battle for those final three or four or five feet at the end of every Michigan run will be more combative than anything Michigan has faced this year. That will be interesting theater. Collisions all over the place.

What makes Michigan’s ground game good? Well, the usual things. They have a good offensive line, with excellent running backs. They come at you a bit differently than most teams, with ability to pull the center and guards to join mobile tight ends in adding gaps for your defense to fill, while taking on heavy contact. That’s when they’re gap blocking. They are strong with inside zone blocking too. And when you lean too heavily on that, they’ll try to hit you with a fly sweep.

Michigan’s WRs do a good job of blocking on the edge and downfield, too. Tucker challenges his CBs to be physical in the run game. That’s going to be a battle on the edge, as Michigan’s WRs and MSU’s cornerbacks are both implored to win their collisions.

Michigan isn’t using new concepts in blocking. But some of it is a style of play that has been left behind nationally in recent years due to the onset of uptempo spread.

However, if you watched what Alabama did to Mississippi, and what Illinois did to Penn State, we are seeing sleeper cells of old-school, grind-it-out run game tapping out some of these built-for-pass defenses.

Michigan has been mixing fast tempo with its ground-and-pound style. This gives an extra edge to their physicality.

I’m trying to think of a power-running team in college football that has utilized fast tempo. I can’t think of one. Auburn used to have power elements within its spread-to-run philosophy in past years, but they weren’t as physical as Michigan is right now. I’m not sure the sport has seen physical run style with uptempo in large doses. Michigan doesn’t do it a lot, but there is devastating potential to that concept.



GAME WITHIN THE GAME PART IV

Michigan has been known to load up with “13 personnel,” one back and three tight ends. If they do this against Michigan State, does Michigan State stick with two linebackers and five DBs? Michigan State has stayed in the 4-2-5 basically in all situations in the past two seasons, other than goal-line situations.

Michigan State hasn’t faced many run-heavy type of teams in the past two seasons. Iowa was the closest thing to it, last year, and Michigan State struggled that day.

Michigan will undoubtedly probe the jumbo matchup. If it works, Michigan might stay with it, and stay with it, and stay with it, and stay with it. Remember that Harbaugh once had a Stanford team run something like eight straight identical power runs, all the way to the end zone against USC. He likes making those kind of statements, when he can. He hasn’t made many statements at Michigan in recent years. He’s a loud front runner, if he gets an edge on you.

Wisconsin is a base five-DB defense, and stayed with five DBs most of the game. Wisconsin went with a single deep safety and deployed a safety in the box to help with run support most of the day. Wisconsin dared Michigan to throw it, and Michigan didn’t throw it all that well for most of the game, but hit some game-breaking pass plays along the way to crack the game open.

So Wisconsin was basically able to contain the run with a five-DB alignment. Wisconsin didn’t have to come out of its 5-DB base. Wisconsin, on defense, is terrific. Michigan State isn’t at that level, yet.

Michigan also is a base five-DB team. But Michigan frequently went with four DBs (maybe 35 percent of the time) against the Badgers. They changed what they do in order to match up with the Wisconsin ground game. Will Michigan State be willing to make this kind of concession and go with three LBs instead of five DBs? I don’t think so. But we’ll learn as we go.

Michael Dowell is a decent nickel back when he comes off the bench to replace Darious Snow. Michigan State would be bigger and tougher against the run if Michigan State went with a linebacker like Ben VanSumeren or Noah Harvey instead of Dowell. But that would mean scrapping your base system, and make you slower against the pass.

Michigan State will undoubtedly begin the game by taking on Michigan’s heavy sets with its base 4-2-5. But if things go sour, does Michigan State have a Plan B 4-3 in the bullpen? I doubt it. But it’s something to watch for if Michigan’s battering ram offense begins to batter.

I tend to agree with Big Moobie on this one; you stick with your base. And that’s what I expect Michigan State to do.

Eventually, I would expect Michigan State to do what Wisconsin did, and go with a single safety deep (which means putting a safety in the box to help stop the run).

Wisconsin did it with an odd 30 front. Michigan State doesn’t use the same alignement. But I would expect Michigan State to replicate the same numbers situation. Try to outnumber the run game inside. This gives McNamara clearer avenues to throw the ball, but that’s the tradeoff you’re probably going to be willing to make in order to try to contain the running attack.

Wisconsin was successful with it. But it takes more than X’s and O’s. Wisconsin has some tough, hard-hitting guys on that defense, and they play together extremely well. Michigan State has a good defense, but not quite at Wisconsin’s level, especially against the run.

Wisconsin held Michigan to 2.5 yards per carry. That being said, Michigan got the tough yards on the ground when they needed to.

Michigan State has a better offense than Wisconsin of course. It won’t take a 2.5 yard per carry defense for Michigan State to win this game. But if Michigan State is able to stay at it’s conference seasonal average of 3.5 yards allowed per carry, then the Spartans will be right in this game.


GAME WITHIN THE GAME PART V

I’ve made it clear that “stopping” Michigan’s ground game will be extremely difficult. However, if you can contain the run between the 20-yard-lines, and then STOP THE RUN IN THE RED ZONE, that would be a major step on the path to victory for Michigan State.

Michigan State’s red zone defense has been excellent this year, especially against the pass.

Last week, Michigan blew a pair of trips inside the 5-yard line, getting too cute with some pass attempts. This week, I would imagine Michigan will be going full-bore, ground-and-pound inside the 10-yard line. MSU’s run defense is important all day, but especially in the red zone.

Michigan State will check VanSumeren and Harvey into the game in the red zone. The run game exchanges inside the 25-yard line, specifically inside the 15-yard line, will be crucial.

Know this about Michigan: They love to go for it on fourth down. And as an opponent, you hate to see them do it, because they are probably going to convert.

Michigan went for it twice on fourth down inside its own territory on the opening drive at Wisconsin. The second one was stuffed when LT Ryan Hayes was beaten inside by UW DE Henningsen. Michigan is 5-for-5 on its other fourth down attempts in Big Ten games this year.

Michigan will drive you nuts with short completions or a QB scramble on third-and-eight, just to set up fourth-and-short. And then they convert on fourth down, when you think you had them stopped.


APPLES TO APPLES

I like to do a tale of the tape in this manner to give readers an apples-to-apples view of the opponent in relation to the home team players that they are familiar with.

Of course these players don’t directly match up with one another, but it’s an interesting exercise.

Michigan State has the better QB and WRs, but the margin is not as large as I thought it would be when I began this study. Michigan’s WRs are improving and rising to the scene.

Michigan has the better blocking tight ends by far.

Connor Heyward is the best pass-catching threat at TE on the field for either team, but Michigan has pretty good ones, and they are way better blockers.

Michigan State is better at left guard if Trevor Keegan (77) plays for Michigan. If Barnhart plays for Michigan at left guard, it’s probably a wash, or maybe an edge JD Duplain. Keegan has started most of the year, but I don’t care; Barnhart looks better to me. Keegan has been hurt (shoulder) lately, so maybe he was playing hurt when he was grading out poorly earlier in the season. But he if plays, and he plays like he did in the first half of the season, he’ll have severe trouble against Michigan State right DT Jacob Slade.

Getting back to apples:

Michigan is better at center.

Michigan State is better at RG with Jarvis when Filaga (66) plays for Michigan. When Zak Zinter (65) is healthy and plays for Michigan, it’s maybe a wash.

Michigan is better at RT.

Left tackle is probably a wash.

Collectively, Michigan’s offensive line is better than MSU’s in run blocking and pass blocking. MSU’s depth at LT, C and G makes for fresher bodies, and that’s not a bad thing but it doesn’t change the overall edge to Michigan. Meanwhile, I’m hearing that one of MSU’s second-string o-linemen will miss the game due to an ailment.

When adding the TE blocking element, Michigan’s offensive front has definitely been better than Michigan State’s. MSU’s has not been bad at all, but Michigan’s has been more consistent.

On defense:

Michigan’s defensive tackles are good, but I’d give the edge to Michigan State. Mazi Smith (58) is improved at DT for Michigan, but he hasn’t been as good as Jacob Slade.

Chris Hinton (15) is improved at DT and has become pretty good after a mediocre 2020, but I’d go with MSU’s Simeon Barrow by a small margin. Yes, I would take MSU’s redshirt freshman over their five-star recruit junior.

Michigan’s first DT off the bench, Kris Jenkins (94), is better than MSU’s first DT off the bench, Maverick Hansen. I like Hansen, but Jenkins has the edge.

MSU’s second and third DTs off the bench are better than Michigan’s. Michigan’s Jeter and Speight were not good in short stints against Nebraska. MSU’s Dashawn Mallory is serviceable. Whether or not Jalen Hunt plays remains to be seen, but he was expected to be a plus player this year, but has been out with ailments.

At defensive end, Hutchinson is a little more active and consistent than Jacub Panasiuk, but Panasiuk is eager to prove he deserves equal billing. (Hutchinson is listed as a linebacker but he’s basically a stand-up defensive end and plays the same assignments and techniques of a defensive end). Panasiuk might change my mind on this one by the end of the day, but NFL scouts will still favor Hutchinson. Either guy is capable of making the play that changes this game. PFF has Panasiuk with 32 QB hurries on the year; Hutchinson has 21. They're both good against the run. Hutchinson is better in loose-play pursuit, keeping his balance, chasing to the sideline, that type of thing.

Michigan’s other defensive end (or OLB, if you will), David Ojabo (55), is better than Drew Jordan or Jeff Pietrowski. Maybe not better than a healthy Drew Beesley. Jordan is coming on, though.

As for Beesley, there are rumors he may play in this game. I don’t have any intel on that. But if he plays, what percentage of his usual excellence will he be able to present? I do not know.

But if you put a September version of Beesley on the field, MSU’s chances of winning go up a tick.

I like Pietrowski, but Michigan’s first DE off the bench, 90 Morris, is a titch better.

Michigan’s MLB Josh Ross (12) is a little better than Cal Haladay. I like Haladay. He’s solid, and has a good future. But the edge goes to Ross.

At the other inside LB position, Crouch is bigger, faster, more physical than Nikhai Hill-Green (41), but Hill-Green is probably more dependable to be in the correct gap. I would lean toward taking Crouch on the come, on the rise, but it’s hard to pick a winner between those two. Hill-Green is underrated. He’s a flat-back hitter.

Michigan’s Daxton Hill (30) is fast and more versatile than Darius Snow at the nickel, but Snow is more physical. Overall, Hill has the edge with his ability to roam the field as a safety, or a slot corner, or a blitz finisher. Hill plays fast. He’s an eraser.

At cornerback, MSU’s are on the rise. Michigan’s Vincent Gray (4) has been mediocre in the past and has benefitted from Michigan’s decreased use off press man-to-man this year. But he’s still a question mark. Michigan State embarrassed him last year.

The other Michigan cornerback is unproven. DJ Turner (5) was a surprise starter last week, making the first start of his career. He survived some deep shot attempts by Northwestern and became more comfortable as the game progressed. He replaced Gemon Green (22), who was out for unknown reasons.

Gray (4) and Turner (5) will be tested early and often. Game-changing moments could hang in the balance.

MSU’s cornerbacks (Ronald Williams, Chester Kimbrough) have settled in nicely. I give the edge to Michigan State.

Michigan State NEEDS to have the better cornerback play in this game (as in, Michigan State needs to test Michigan’s cornerbacks and find that they are as faulty as they were last year. Although they might not be as faulty as last year, MSU’s passing attack is also better than it was last year). (And MSU's cornerbacks need to continue to rise and become as good as I think they are becoming. This is an X-factor area for both teams).

Michigan safeties Brad Hawkins and RJ Moten haven’t been weaknesses, but again, they haven’t been tested by a good passing attack. And are they better than Xavier Henderson and Angelo Grose? I think not. I’ll go with Henderson and an improving Grose. Grose is going to hit some people. Henderson is an eraser.


GAME WITHIN THE GAME PART VI

Michigan is excellent on third-and-short. I mean excellent. And if you’re good enough to stop them on third-and-short, guess what? You will then have to stop them on fourth-and-short.

Haskins is simply a hard, tough running back in short yardage. And their o-line is tight. I saw TE Erick All miss a block on a third-and-short. And I saw left tackle Hayes miss a block on third-and-short. But I haven’t seen many other errors.

Meanwhile, think of the problems Michigan State has had on third-and-short. Meanwhile, add the fact that Michigan is pretty good at reducing inward on defense on third-and-short, making it very hard for opponents to convert between the tackles on a run play in a short-yardage situation. They are good at that end of it as well.

If we are to go by body of work to this point, I would expect Michigan to be the better team in third-and-short in this game.

Northwestern chose to go under center (which is uncommon for them) on a short-yardage play last week, and baited Michigan into reducing inward and crowding the line of scrimmage. Northwestern completed a little flare pass out to the flat for a short gain but also had a second receiver breaking wide open deep. If the QB had thrown deep, Northwestern likely would have stolen a TD.

Fourth-and-short could be a deep pass down for Michigan State.



GAME WITHIN THE GAME PART VII

We’ve talked enough about Michigan’s offense. Let’s talk about their defense.

Michigan’s base is two down lineman front, with two stand-up defensive ends.

The interior DTs are better than last year and that’s been a key to their success.

The d-ends (Hutchinson and Ojabo) are good two-way players. Good with the pass rush, and sturdy against the run. Well-rounded.

Their base defense plays with five defensive backs.

I don’t care what they call it, Michigan basically plays a 4-2-5 similar to Michigan State. The stand-up defensive ends can be called linebackers if you want, but they play the same techniques as defensive ends.

Be aware of this potential change-up:

Michigan went with three down linemen quite often against Wisconsin. I haven’t watched every snap of every game, but I haven’t seen them do that in most other games.

At times against the Badgers, Michigan went with a “Bear” front with those three down linemen. I didn’t chart it and count it up, but I would estimate that Michigan went with three down linemen maybe 55 percent of the time. Of those snaps, I would estimate Michigan was in a Bear front maybe 40 percent of the time.

In the Bear front, those three defensive linemen are reduced inside to cover the G-C-G area. The Bear front puts the two guards and the center in man-to-man confrontations. Those three o-linemen are unable to double-team anyone or climb out to the LB level, and this puts a dent in a lot of run schemes.

Michigan went with a 5-1 look when deploying the Bear. It essentially was a Bear nickel, which is pretty uncommon.

Sometimes, a safety came down to play at the linebacker level to create a 5-2.

A Bear front is done to stop the run. Michigan got it done against Wisconsin.

When in the Bear, Michigan dared Wisconsin to throw. They could not. Especially after starting QB Mertz went out for the game on the third play of the second half.

Wisconsin tried to trap-block Hutchinson two or three times when Michigan went to the Bear front. They might have gotten a first down or two that way, but had no significant success, and couldn’t protect on third down, and couldn’t pass the ball.

Would Michigan go with a Bear front to stop Kenneth Walker III in order to stop the run and make Michigan State one-dimensional? I doubt it. But Michigan has that at their disposal if needed, especially on third-and-short if they have time to sub.

Michigan will try to stop the run with its base two-down lineman alignment. They might get it done with their base, and not have to go to the Bear.

If they go to the Bear, Michigan has to go to a single safety deep (and bring a safety down near the box in order to host all edge gaps). If they do this, Payton Thorne’s passing lanes will open up a little bit, and that might not be a tradeoff Michigan needs to make or wants to make. Michigan will try to stop the run with its base, and might get it done that way anyway.



MICHIGAN DEFENSE: THE MACRO

Things to know:

* It’s hard to run between the tackles against Michigan in short yardage. Second-string DT 94 Chris Jenkins did a good job two-gapping, defeating a block, penetrating and getting an important fourth-down stoppage against Rutgers when Michigan was on the ropes. He did the same thing against Nebraska on a third-and-one power in the 3Q.

* Michigan did a good job of getting into Nebraska’s tendencies or signs on a third-and-three stoppage in the 1H. Nebraska attempted a fake pass right, counter screen pass left. But on that play, for some reason, Michigan’s stand-up defensive ends did not rush the QB, and instead surfed laterally expecting a screen pass. Stand-up DE 55 Ojabo covered the RB in the left flat, who was the primary guy on the screen. Nullified the play. QB had to throw it away. How did Ojabo know? I don’t know. But he did.

* Same thing in stopping Nebraska on a fourth-and-goal in the first quarter. The stand-up DE 90 Mike Morris wasn’t even looking at the ball in the backfield on a QB keeper run to his side. He was looking at the WR who was creeping in at pre-snap to crack block him. Morris absolutely knew the crack was coming and defeated that block and bounced the play for safety Brad Hawkins to make the tackle over the top at the sideline. Not sure if it’s film study across the board, a captain on the field, or tips yelled from the sideline, but they have had some key plays sniffed out a time or two.

* On third-down passing situations, Michigan will “mug up” seven players at the line of scrimmage, threatening to blitz them all. But usually, they send five and play zone behind it. You’ve heard of a zone blitz or a fire zone. That’s what they do. They do it well.

You have to figure out which five of those seven are rushing. Frequently it’s only four of those seven and they bring a fifth guy from somewhere deep, and he’s flying.

So you have to block those five, AND you have to deal with Hutchinson and Ojabo.

THEN you have to figure out what coverage they are in.

It’s usually zone, but not the same type of zone each time.

They do some man-to-man behind those pressures, just to keep it varied.

They got a key sack against Northwestern on a third-and-eight with cover-three/match with a robber, plus Hill playing MEG (man everywhere he goes) on the slot receiver. That was pretty intricate stuff, and I think Michigan switched to it as a result of a Northwestern motion to max protection.

So Northwestern kept the RB and TE in to pass block on that play. Michigan only ended up rushing four, with all that other business behind it. Northwestern had only three receivers out, against seven defenders, doing all that exotic stuff. The QB had no chance. Sack.

So a QB has less than a couple of seconds to get it all figured out, while you hope your guys can protect against Hutchinson and Ojabo.

Stay out of third and long.

* What has worked on third and long? Northwestern clipped off a screen against a seven-man zone, which shouldn’t have worked, but it did. Then they did a tunnel screen for another first down. That was one of their only decent drives. Then they tried it again, but failed, and missed a field goal when it was 17-7. Then they had a punt blocked. Ballgame.

* As for Hutchinson, he’s as good as the hype. If you run right at him, he’s sturdy enough to stack it up. If you option him, Rutgers (and Nebraska) had a little bit of success here and there with that. But that’s not MSU’s jam.

Wisconsin tried to trap him. That worked for a play or two, for meager gains. You’re not going to live on that. He’s smart and he takes on trap blocks aggressively and at good angles.

He is very good with the outside pass rush. He shoulder fakes to the inside to set up the outside pass rush. Far be it for me to suggest anything to him, but I’m a little surprised he doesn’t attempt more inside moves. When he has gone inside with the swim, he’s done well with it. But it might not be his choice. He might be assigned to the edge gap every single time and needs to carry out the assignment.

One other occasional negative is that he comes off the edge with so much speed that sometimes he isn’t able to turn the tight corner at the end to get to the QB and sometimes can be pushed behind the QB - something that would drive Nick Saban angry.

But Hutchinson is good. They have had some overrated players over the years, but he is not one of them.

* Michigan will play off of the blocking attention Hutchinson receives. On a third-and-10 against Wisconsin, Michigan had Hutchinson on the right side but overloaded the left side. They did this after dropping Daxton Hill into a two-deep while bring the previous safety, RJ Moten, on a blitz.

So to the QB, it looks like a safety blitz, but they replaced that safety with nickel back Hill. These are moving pictures and they are moving fast. QB pauses mentally for a second and it’s too late.

At presnap, they had their usual seven guys mugging up at the line of scrimmage, all of them threatening to blitz. The corners were showing press man. But at the snap, the corners bailed and three of the muggers dropped into coverage.

The three Badgers on the left side of the line had to block four rushers. Overload. It was a five-man rush that created a small-surface effect of an all-out blitz without the risk.

They’re pretty sharp on defense on third-and-long. Like I said, if Michigan State and Thorne and play design are able to carve out consistent success on third-and-long in this game, feel free to plant a flag. And take a selfie.

Login to view embedded media
WHAT HAS WORKED AGAINST MICHIGAN?

Rutgers had success with a scrappy, running QB as part of a nice package of QB power read option plays. They got a lot of mileage out of that in the second half, in conjunction with Michigan’s offense going into hibernation.

Nebraska clipped off a pair of misdirection capers for big plays in the pass game. Both were tricks, and they tapped into Michigan’s tendency knowledge to do it. They used Michigan’s film study against them. They broke tendency.

Examples:

- Michigan allowed a 42-yard TD pass to Nebraska. Nebraska was able to get LB Nikhai Hill-Green to bite on cheese. They got him caught in man-to-man on the RB on somewhat of a trick play intended to turn Hill-Green inside-out, if he indeed was in man-to-man (that’s what it looked like to me).

Nebraska ran pin-and-pull run action that was very similar to the QB power read option that Rutgers had success with. Michigan no doubt worked on stopping that look. So when Nebraska presented it here, the LB (Hill-Green) bit hard on the QB run threat, by that time the RB had a step on him down the sideline on a delayed sneak-release wheel the other way.

That being said, Hill-Green wasn’t fooled for long and tried to catch up to the RB. RB beat him by 3 yards.

That play, and ploy, detonated at just the right time, turned a 19-7 Michigan lead into a 19-14 root canal with 1:24 left in the third quarter.

(Three plays later, my boy McNamara threw an interception that was returned 20 yards to the Michigan 13-yard line. At that instant, Harbaugh had the same look on his face that he had when they had trouble with the snap in 2015. This bunch is only one or two bad breaks away from needing straight jackets. Michigan State has shown some mental resiliency this year. They can fight back from problems partly because they are built to believe and they do believe, and there hasn’t been a lot of pressure on them. If Michigan has some problems, will they be able to overcome all that noise in their heads? That’s a real question, if Michigan State is able to present them with problems and alter their belief).

(As for McNamara on that interception, that play was Exhibit A as to why they don’t let him throw intermediate pass routes over the middle. It was third-and-10. Momentum had shifted. They asked him to push the envelope and do what every garden variety college quarterback SHOULD be able to do, and that’s read a coverage and attempt a pass, maybe even over the middle, on third-and-10. He failed miserably. He made one read and forced a bad pass to a TE on an over route into tight coverage).

- Next play: Nebraska 13-yard misdirection flare for a TD late in the 3Q at Nebraska. Nebraska was probably anticipating aggressive Michigan man-to-man blitz in a sudden change situation, which is exactly what Michigan did. This time, Nebraska got CB Vince Gray to bite the cheese. Again with a delayed sneak route.

Gray bit hard on orbit motion, which for Nebraska usually resulted in the WR as a pitch man on option to the other side. That’s not something Michigan State can replicate because Michigan State doesn’t run that type of option with orbit motion.

Gray bit hard and over-pursued to play the run, and completely lost the WR who circled back to the flat to give Nebraska a 22-19 lead.

Michigan hits the film room hard. You can tell. That’s part of what makes them good, on the majority of your plays. So you have to use your tendencies against them, break tendency, and score knockdown blows when the opportunity presents itself.

Michigan State has been pretty good at this during Tucker’s short tenure. What does Michigan State have in its toolbox that could go to work in this category? You could move the pocket with Thorne. He reads well on the run and throws well on the run. Moving the pocket isn’t as safe as you might think against Michigan. Ojabo and Hutchinson run well, contain well and converge well if you try to “naked” them.

Still, there are counter boot elements and sprint out pass schemes that can be probed. Northwestern’s first play of the game was a sprint-out pass. Michigan LB Junior Colson blew his assignment on a wheel route, and the play got out for 20 yards.

Michigan State adjusted to Indiana’s defensive success with a counter boot pass to Jayden Reed on the first play of the second half for 23 tone-changing yards. They came back to that play later for another 20.

Michigan State had great success with screen passes early in the season. Michigan State has had trouble getting them off the ground lately. Michigan allowed a pair of screen passes to get out against Northwestern.

Michigan State will attempt some screens. How good will their window dressing be? Will they catch Michigan in the perfect rock/paper/scissors decision to make it work? Games can pivot on such things. Getting the ball to Kenneth Walker III via the air game is something we haven’t seen Michigan State delve into a lot, but you know there are things in the pl aybook to do just that.

Nebraska used those two misdirection plays for a pair of quick TDs and a sudden 22-19 lead late in the third quarter.

Michigan’s defense is good. But if you can hit them with a couple of misdirection ploys AND hit two or three deep shots (which Michigan State is good at, and Michigan is unproven at defending), THEN you have a chance to match whatever Michigan can muster on the scoreboard with its run game.

And IF your defense can stiffen against the run IN THE RED ZONE, then it could add up to a good day on the scoreboard for Michigan State, even if Michigan “wins” the majority of the plays. You can win the majority of the plays, but lose on the scoreboard. See Indiana two weeks ago, and Michigan State vs Nebraska (to a greater extent) on Sept. 25. Michigan State might need to win in that fashion in this game too.

But that’s IF this game were in a neutral environment with no emotional factors.

Add the locale, and the emotional factors, and the IF/THEN path to victory for Michigan State could possibly become easier than it would be in a neutral local with neutral emotions.


HUNTING DAWGS MUST HUNT

Michigan State has some explosive play makers, and they need to make noise.

Michigan State leads the Big Ten in sacks with 25. MSU’s pass rush lacked a little juice against Indiana. The week off should help.

To the naked eye, I swear Michigan’s pass rush is as good as MSU’s but they have only 15 sacks on the year (tied for 7th-10th in the Big Ten).

Pro Football Focus has Michigan State with 127 QB hurries on the year. They have Michigan with only 71.

MSU’s edge in this area HAS to be felt. They have to make noise, hit a QB’s arm, get an INT that way, get at least three sacks, get a strip sack along the way. This is an area in which Michigan State can equalize or surpass any slow-drip success Michigan has with its run game.

As for McNamara, he isn’t a bad scrambler. He can help move the chains in that category, or scramble for some tough yards to set up fourth-and-manageable.

Sometimes he makes poor decisions. He hung out in the end zone too long, trying to make reads, early in the Wisconsin game, but escaped, valved it off to RB Corum, and he wiggled and rambled for a first down. Catastrophe averted. But he is capable of catastrophe.

Against Northwestern, he was enjoying a good two-and-a-half quarters, having been given freedom to attempt more downfield passes, more play-action passes. I thought he was growing.

But then, after Northwestern missed a field goal that should have cut the lead to 17-10 with 7:50 left in the third quarter, Michigan gave McNamara freedom to open another drive with a play-action pass. This time, he held the ball too long, stared down the middle receiver in a sail concept, and his arm was hit as he threw. He was darn lucky that his ill-advised, late pass wasn’t intercepted at the Michigan 30-yard line, and perhaps returned for more.

McNamara is improving. But Michigan State is going to need some relapses from him like this one, and Michigan State needs to be fortunate enough to turn any mistakes such as this into game-changing plays. He won’t give you many. They don’t let him try many. When he errs, you have to throat him.



ADD IT ALL UP

I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes down to a loose play or some sort of un-scouted, unscripted chaotic moment.

Nebraska looked like the Huskers were going to drive for a game-winning field goal attempt when the QB fumbled on a third-and-one sneak, due in part to a late whistle and a good hit.

Michigan State looked like it was going to lose to Nebraska when that game flipped on somewhat of a fluke punt return.

These games can turn on unexpected, unpredictable loose situations outside the realm of matchups or X’s and O’s. And my guess is that this game could pivot along those lines. Trying to guess which team is going to get that play at that time is like trying to predict a coin flip.

As for X’s and O’s and matchups, Michigan COULD have problems with MSU’s passing attack, IF Michigan State’s QB has time to go to work on them, especially on first down, and especially if Michigan State is able to establish a ground game and achieve balance.

MSU’s chances of establishing a ground game and achieving balance? Less than 50 percent in my book. I think that equates to rushing for fewer than 120 yards for Michigan State.

MSU’s chances of protecting the passer? Pretty good on most pass plays, but you only need to let the QB get hit on two or three situations to gum up field position and flip momentum. It’s hard to protect against and filter out all those Scud missiles. Especially on third-and-long. Stay out of third-and-long.

That goes both ways. MSU’s pass rush has been a great factor this year. But with the way Michigan’s offense operates, they don’t allow your pass rush to become a factor. They throw short, make short reads, attempt one-read pass plays, or they go deep with one read on time.

Michigan isn’t great. But they’re good. The Wolverines would be a lot better if they had a reliable, consistent quarterback and better talent at WR. Their WR talent is good, but not quite what WR talent at Michigan has been in other years. The injury to WR Ronnie Bell has something to do with that.

So what happens if you can take Michigan into the deep water, AND contain the run between the 20s, AND stop the run in the red zone, AND force McNamara to play with precision and poise and beat you that way? That’s what Michigan State is hoping to find out. That’s what Michigan State MUST find out.

Michigan wasn’t great on the ground against Wisconsin and Rutgers. Michigan State’s program isn’t quite mature enough on defense to replicate what Wisconsin has on defense. At least not on a normal Saturday. But this isn’t a normal Saturday. This is rivalry Saturday, a rivalry that elicits venom and performance that only a small handful of the most motivated teams in the best and worst rivalries would understand. Michigan State often harnesses that level of supernova infinity in this game. Michigan has to hope the Spartans Dawgs don’t go into werewolf mode in this game. Michigan can have a say in whether or not that happens. They better get it said.


PRE-SNAP POSTSCRIPT:

https://michiganstate.forums.rivals.com/threads/the-pre-snap-read-postscript.224210/

I caught up with Clayton Safie from TheWolverine.com for a Q&A exchange. Here is what I came back with

Are they requiring a mask to be worn at all times except if drinking or eating? Any other restrictions?

VanSumeren repping with the ones, with Crouch.

Gaoteote repping with Harvey with the twos.

MSU rallied with two goals in the 3rd period including Middendorf scoring with 2:12 to go in regulation for the win.

DeRidder was strong in goal making 35 saves.

MSU had no power plays all game long.

Davidson scored the first MSU Goal.

MSU will go to Mass.-Lowell next week for a pair of games. They split at Arizona State last weekend (did not play this weekend).

Michigan will likely be the #1 team in the country next week - after they dominated #5 Minnesota-Duluth 5-1 last night and beat #1 Minnesota State tonight 3-2.

The Pre-Snap Read: Michigan State vs Indiana​

By Jim Comparoni
SpartanMag.com

East Lansing, Mich. - Mel Tucker’s ability to play sports psychologist will be tested again this week, perhaps more than at any time thus far in the season.

Tucker has been excellent in that area since the day he arrived at Michigan State. He’s instilled all the proven axioms, mantras and philosophies that he has picked up along the way during his decades of coaching and applied them to a rising Michigan State program. They’ve helped Michigan State build fast and get to this point. The Spartans are 6-0, ranked No. 10 in the nation and described this week by Sports Illustrated as the surprise team of the country.
Now, they have to deal with the rat poison. Tucker has been working to keep their blinders on, with tunnel vision on the present tasks.

It was a similar challenge earlier in the year after the big win over Miami. Michigan State passed that exam against Western Kentucky.

Now, it’s a similar test, but a more difficult one. The rat poison is stronger (“rat poison” is the term Nick Saban has used to describe the age-old challenge of dealing with hyped press clippings and pats on the back).

Tucker has these guys well-trained. They should be okay in the focus factor. And they need to be because Indiana is a dangerous opposite of Michigan State. Indiana was a preseason Top 20 team in the coaches poll for the first time since 1968.

Then Indiana was blown out by Iowa in a week one showdown. Then came a loss against current Top 5 team Cincinnati in a game that turned on a dime when Indiana linebacker and leader Micah McFadden was ejected for targeting.

Then Indiana lost two weeks ago to Penn State, 24-0, with QB Michael Penix hurting, struggling and knocked out against a Nittany Lions defense that is rising to become among the best in the county.

Indiana is not bad at all. The Hoosiers are a soiled 2-3. They have been hurt by injury. They are desperate to prove they are better than 2-3, desperate to get to 3-3, desperate to show they are still better than Michigan State.

Meanwhile, Tucker is prodding his team to remain hungry, and celebrating the notion that they are still desperate to improve. That’s the only way to be, regardless of your record. That’s what he says every week, and his players have bought in.

They had better.

But think about it this way: What would MSU’s record be if the Spartans had Indiana’ schedule? They may very well be 2-3 with losses to Iowa, Cincinnati and Penn State.

But what would Indiana be with MSU’s schedule? I think the Hoosiers would have had trouble beating Miami and Nebraska. Maybe 3-2. It would be tight.

And this game is going to be tight.

No one would have ever handicapped this game in the preseason as being an underdog situation for Indiana. But that’s what it is. And that will bring out the best in Indiana.

Throw in the home crowd in Bloomington, and that adds an edge to the underdog’s bite. Then throw in the trap game element for Michigan State, with tons of people talking about a potential 7-0 vs 7-0 showdown with Michigan on Oct. 30.

Rat poison, I tell ya.

Many intangible challenges are lined up against Michigan State here.

I’ll say the say the same thing I said prior to the opener against Northwestern: I’ll be pleasantly impressed if Michigan State can handle its business in these circumstances and keep rolling the way they’ve been rolling.

I didn’t pick Michigan State to beat Northwestern, because we knew very little about Michigan State.

But I did pick Michigan State to beat Miami. And I had Michigan State with an athletic edge over Rutgers.

If I were to pick Michigan State to beat Indiana, it would be by fewer confidence percentage points than I had for the Spartans against Miami or Rutgers. This has tough task written all over it for Michigan State, and if the Spartans make the type of game management mistakes that they had last week against Rutgers, they won’t win.

This matchup, from a psychological standpoint, reminds me a little of Northwestern vs Michigan State last year. Northwestern was the surprise team, the unbeaten team. Michigan State was the wounded-pride team. Michigan State had the potential to play decent physical football on a given day, and rose up to surprise a traveling Wildcat team.

This year, Indiana has more than potential to play good physical football on a given day, with its entire defensive 11 and its offensive line, and packs the capacity to surprise a traveling Spartan team. But it wouldn’t be that much of a surprise, based on the 3-point point spread.

One big difference: Michigan State was manhandled by Indiana last year. Despite MSU’s pretty record, there is no way the Spartans will overlook Indiana, not after the terrific performance the Hoosiers put on Michigan State last year. They won’t overlook Indiana, but that doesn’t mean they won’t come out flat. Sometimes you think you’re ready, and ready to try, but you unscrew the cap and there’s no fizz. It happens in football.

Bobby Bowden used to say every great team will have two games when the starch just isn’t there, and you have to fight through and figure out a way to get it done. Maybe Michigan State already had one of those games, against Nebraska. Maybe they aren’t due for another one for awhile. But be on alert for starch and fizz shortages in Bloomington on Saturday.


FINAL ANALYSIS FIRST

Indiana is expected to be without quarterback Michael Penix. He went out with a separated shoulder at Penn State two weeks ago. Head coach Tom Allen says he is “week to week.”

Penix has been explosively splendid at times in his career, but he has not been good this year. He made bad decisions in losses to Iowa and Cincinnati. He had bad spells of accuracy issues against the Bearcats. He played well in beating Western Kentucky on a night when IU needed every yard and point.

Jack Tuttle (6-4, 212, R-Jr., San Marcos, Calif) will step in as a capable understudy. He started two games last year after Penix was lost to injury. He threw for 201 yards in the Outback Bowl last year.

Tuttle is a solid quarterback. He was a four-star recruit. He’s better than Rutgers’ Noah Vedral. Tuttle is kind of consistent. Penix is not. There is a chance that Indiana fans will come out of this game thinking they were better hands with Tuttle than they would have been with Penix. A chance.

Just because Penix is out does not mean Indiana’s quarterback fortunes are in worse shape.

In a 38-24 loss to Cincinnati, Penix was 17 of 40 with three interceptions. I’ll wait and see what Tuttle looks like on Saturday, but part of me thinks Indiana would have had a better chance to win that game with Tuttle. But, Indiana wouldn’t have beaten Western Kentucky without Penix. So it can cut both ways.

My point: Tuttle isn’t bad. He’s a decent possession type passer. He mixes in the run a little bit, on read keepers and scrambles. He isn’t as good a runner as Vedral or Payton Thorne, but he’s not far behind.

Tuttle isn’t bad, but I like Payton Thorne more. The QB edge is a comfortable weapon that Michigan State has been trotting out most weekends this year. Maybe every weekend (with the exception of the Nebraska game when Thorne battled through a bad ding).

MSU’s explosiveness at wide receiver and tailback are also difference-makers. Indiana is pretty good at wide receiver and running back, but the Hoosiers trail Michigan State in those skill position areas.

As long as Michigan State doesn’t repeat the game operational mistakes they had last week, and doesn’t lose the turnover or special teams battle, then the Spartans should be in decent shape to win this game.

Indiana’s defense is pretty good. Not as good as last year. They aren’t sacking the QB or forcing turnovers nearly like they did last year. Having a new defensive coordinator likely has something to do with that (as their old defensive coordinator is now running a defense at South Alabama which leads the nation in fewest yards allowed per pass attempt. That guy, 34-year-old Kane Wommack, was a wizard last year for the Hoosiers).

On offense, Michigan State will have a harder time running the ball than they did against Rutgers, but an easier time than they had against Nebraska.

Indiana’s defensive front is okay, it’s linebackers are quite good. Indiana’s secondary is quick and tackles well. They stay square. They aren’t slowish and leaky like Rutgers in the back seven.

Indiana played solidly on defense for most of the Penn State game, but the Nittany Lions just kind of won via a slow drip. One touchdown every quarter is pretty much how it worked. Indiana’s defense was decent, despite a slew of injuries, but it’s hard to hold Penn State to fewer than 24 points.

As for Indiana’s offense, they have had injuries at QB and WR (FSU transfer Matthews was good against Cincinnati but is out for the year).

[The Cincinnati game was MUCH closer than the score indicated by the way. Indiana was terrific in the first 25 minutes of that game and coulda, shoulda been up 17-0 or 21-0 or more by halftime. More on that later.]

The Indiana running game is fair to middling. The o-line and run game was excellent early against Cincinnati but tapered off. They didn’t get anything going on the ground against a very good Penn State defense.

Indiana has played against three of the best defenses in the country, in Top 10 teams Iowa, Penn State and Cincinnati. So their numbers are going to be a little dull.

They have that working knowledge in their database, and have had their pride crimped a little bit, now they’ve had a bye week. They’re getting off the mat angry and capable. It’s a dangerous opponent, just like Miami was for the Spartans, just like Rutgers was, just like Western Kentucky was. Michigan State has answered those psyschological and motivational challenges well. Now they have to do it against a notch-better team while Michigan State has more and more to protect and more to lose. Head coaching leadership is so important at a time like this, for both teams. Indiana has it. We’ve all seen that. And I’m quite sure Michigan State has it in very good fashion as well with Mel Tucker. He’s new to the head coaching gig, but I think he has the goods to prove that he can coach a team to handle success … because he’s a demanding guy and he knows what needs to be demanded, and the players respond well to his challenges and demands.

The Indiana passing game with Tuttle won’t be bad. But I don’t think he will be able to carry Indiana to victory by himself unless Michigan State helps with some of the operational errors we saw last week. Michigan State can’t afford to give away a possession like the Spartans nearly did last week at the end of the first half. Michigan State can’t afford to have a bad snap fumble inside its 20-yard line like last week. Michigan State can’t afford to have a delay of game on fourth-and-medium at the 35-yard line, costing the Spartans a decision as to whether to attempt a 52-yard field goal into the wind or go for it. Instead, the penalty forced Michigan State to punt, resulting in a touchback and 15 net yards from the original fourth-down line of scrimmage. Terrible.

Can’t do that in games in which you don’t have a great physical advantage. Last week, Michigan State had a physical and athletic advantage and a big edge at quarterback.

This week, Michigan State will have an athletic advantage in some areas. But Indiana, if healthy in the secondary, MIGHT stand a decent chance to put clamps on MSU’s wide receivers better than they’ve seen to this point in the season. Every yard and every first down is going to be contested. You can’t expect the 70-plus yard scoring shots this week like you saw against Rutgers. Need to be sharp in the procedural areas of the game. In that regard, last week’s problems were good for Michigan State. Might slap some sense into them.

Michigan State has been pretty good at drilling down into their weaknesses as this season has progressed. Now they need a sharp game from an operational standpoint.


APPLES TO APPLES

* Michigan State has better defensive tackles and defensive ends than Indiana.

* Indiana is better at both inside linebacker positions, and probably is a little better at slot nickel.

* Michigan State has a slight edge at the safety positions. Indiana’s are good, though. But MSU’s were great last week.

* Indiana has an edge at cornerback, based on experience and body of work but MSU’s cornerbacks have a good upside. Indiana’s excellent CBs have had injury problems and questions.

* Indiana’s pass defense is better than MSU’s between the 20-yard lines. But I think MSU’s pass defense might be better than Indiana’s in the red zone.

* Overall, I think MSU’s defense is a little better than Indiana’s, buoyed by the defensive line. But on a given day, Indiana’s defense can outplay MSU’s.

* Indiana’s offensive line looked quite good in the first half against Cincinnati and then kind of went away a little bit. Indiana’s o-line wasn’t terrible against a very good Penn State defensive front. Just not good enough.

I would say MSU’s offensive line is a bit better than Indiana’s, but I’m not married to that opinion.

Michigan State has an edge at quarterback and a big edge at running back and an edge at wide receiver. Indiana has an edge at tight end.


INTANGIBLES

* The way Indiana handled Michigan State last year, and with the Hoosiers having a bye week and maybe getting a little healthier, and with IU in circle-the-wagons mode, the home team Hoosiers are going to fully expect to win this game. Most athletes expect to win, of course, but Indiana’s confidence will be stronger than most times you see a 2-3 team face a 6-0, No. 10-ranked team. And for good reason. This matchup is a tight one.

* Indiana desperately wants to show that last year’s nice season wasn’t a one-hit wonder. And this is a program that has been nothing but occasional one-hit wonders. Last year, they were trying to win their first bowl game since 1991, and failed.

This year, they are trying to have a third consecutive winning season for the first time since the 1940s. Bill Mallory had winning seasons in four out of five years in the 1980s, but go look it up. They haven’t had three straight winning seasons since 1944, ’45 and ’46.

It’s kind of shocking and sobering when you go back over Indiana’s W-L record over the past 70 years. But they had a packed, loud house for that Cincinnati game. That’s a great credit to Indiana football fans who have had so little to cheer about over the generations. I follow this stuff closely and I don’t view Indiana as being a bad football program, but gosh. They HAVE been a terrible program. It doesn’t seem like their individual teams have been that gawd-awful over the last 30 years, but they … just … can’t … put … together … winning … seasons. I guess that’s the definition of a losing program. But they haven’t been that far off, all these years as they’ve toiled.

In the meantime, they have made nice improvement to Memorial Stadium. And fan interest has remained … somewhat interested.

And now this year, Top 20 in the preseason for the first time in the lifetime of most season ticket holders, and they are 2-3.

So any sign of life in this game, and you bet they are going to explode with support. And Tom Allen, one of the more boisterous sideline leaders in the nation, will be banging pots and pans to get them going and keep them going. This is huge for them.

Huge for Michigan State for other reasons. Michigan State has something to protect and much to play for. But Indiana does too.

Every game is a season.


INDIANA RESULTS

L, 34-6 at Iowa
W, 56-14 vs Idaho
L, 38-24 vs Cincinnati
W, 33-31 at Western Kentucky
L, 24-0 at Penn State


VS PENN STATE

* PSU was just too good. PSU systematically drove for a couple of TD drives. Stiffened for a fourth-down stoppage after a sudden change in the first quarter. And suddenly it was 14-0 in the second quarter.

* Indiana intercepted a Sean Clifford pass and returned it to the 12-yard line, down 7-0 in the first quarter. But Penn State stopped Indiana on a fourth-and-one tailback smash up the middle. That was as close as IU got. Penn State’s defense has been excellent all year.

Indiana’s Michael Penix began the game 1-of-10. He battled knee soreness. Then hurt his shoulder.

Penix found a rhythm midway through the game, then came the injury.

He finished 10 of 22 for 118 yards with 1 INT against Penn State.

Tuttle came in and was 6-of-12 for 77 yards in the fourth quarter.

But Penn State’s offense didn’t rip. PSU QB Sean Clifford was 17 of 33 for 178 yards with 3 TDs and 1 INT.

PSU tailback Noah Cain rushed 11 times for 23 yards.

PSU RB Keyvone Lee capitalized on a well-blocked power for a 44-yard run. He finished with 74 yards on eight carries.

Overall, PSU rushed for 209 yards with QB Clifford rushing for 58 of them.

They didn’t put a hole in Indiana.

PSU out-gained Indiana 408-264. It was a slow-drip blowout.


VS CINCINNATI

Indiana completely controlled the first quarter against Cincinnati. Played good defense, good coverage, and ran the ball up the gut on the Bearcats.

The only negative was that QB Penix was inaccurate on three or four passes in the first quarter. Knowing the final score and the fact that Indiana ended up losing by double digits, I was kind of stunned by how good the Hoosiers looked in the first half of this game.

Indiana dominated most of the first half, however the Hoosiers were stuffed on a third-and-2 and then a fourth-and-1 QB sneak inside the 10-yard line when opting for a field goal and a 10-0 lead would have looked pretty good in hindsight. Indiana has not been good in short yardage in these losses.

Next possession, Indiana’s Penix was intercepted in the end zone on third-and-five from the 8-yard line.

Coulda, shoulda been up 13-0 or maybe 21-0 over Cincinnati with 7:23 left in the second quarter with a little different fortune on two plays.

Indiana looked excellent for a quarter and a half in that game. Like a Top 15 team.

Indiana managed to get a sack fumble, and cash in with a TD pass to RB Carr to go up 14-0 late in the first half. Cincinnati was fortunate it was just a two-score game at that point.

McFadden was called for targeting during a third-down incompletion with Indiana leading 14-0 with 4:04 to play in the first half. That kept Cincy’s offense on the field. They drove for a touchdown, then Penix threw another bad INT, which eventually cut it to 14-10 by halftime. The game completely changed when McFadden went out.

Indiana rallied to take a 21-17 lead with 3:54 left in the third quarter, but Cincy returned the ensuing kickoff for a TD, making it 24-21, Bearcats.

Indiana drove to the 2-yard line for first-and-goal with 8:40 left in the game. A TD and extra point would have given Indiana a 31-30 lead. But RB Baldwin (now in the transer portal) fumbled on FIRST AND GOAL AT THE 2! Indiana squandered points like crazy in this game.

A late interception return inside the IU 10-yard line inflated the final margin of victory.

Indiana out-gained Cincinnati 376-328. But Indiana had four turnovers, compared to two for Cincinnati.


INDIANA KEY INJURIES

QB Michael Pennix, doubtful.

WR D.J. Matthews is out. He had 13 catches in four games. FSU transfer. Good player. They miss him.

CB Tiawan Mullen was All-Big Ten last year. Unexpectedly missed the Penn State game after warming up. Tom Allen says he will be a gametime decision. I have a hunch he will play.

CB Reese Taylor is another good one. He missed portions of the PSU game with a lower leg injury. Allen says he is a gametime decision as well. My hunch says he plays. The bye week helps.



INDIANA STATS: DEFENSE

* Indiana is dead last in the Big Ten in scoring defense at 28.2 per game. (Michigan State is No. 6 at 19.3). (But look at Indiana’s opponents. Their defense is better than that stat).

* Indiana is No. 9 in the Big Ten in yards allowed per play. (Michigan State is No. 8.)

* Indiana is No. 11 in the Big Ten in yards allowed per rush at 4.1. (Michigan State is No. 5 at 3.3).

* Indiana is No. 5 in the Big Ten in yards allowed per pass attempt at 6.2. (Michigan State is No. 7 at 6.5).


INDIANA STATS: OFFENSE

* Indiana is No. 10 in the Big Ten in scoring offense at 23.8. (Michigan State is No. 3 at 36.7).

* Indiana is No. 12 in the Big Ten in offensive yards per play at 4.8. (Michigan State is No. 2 at 7.5).

* Indiana is No. 12 in rushing yards per attempt at 3.4. (Michigan State is No. 2 at 5.7).

* Indiana is No. 11 in yards per pass attempt at 6.2. (Michigan State is No. 3 at 9.8).


SIDE NOTES AND QUESTIONS

* I wonder a little bit about Indiana’s conditioning level. Indiana’s ground game and ground defense seemed to wilt in the fourth quarter against Cincinnati in 100-degree heat. Indiana’s ground offense and ground defense didn’t have the edge they enjoyed earlier in the game.

Indiana hasn’t finished games all that strong. Every team works hard on conditioning. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Michigan State demonstrates an edge in fourth quarter freshness in this game.

Tucker preaches that the team that keeps hitting the hardest for the longest will win. It becomes a mentality. Michigan State had it at Miami. Indiana will have a hard time matching Michigan State in that category in this game.

* I thought offensive coordinator Nick Sheridan called an excellent game in terms of play design and timing of calls despite the loss to Cincinnati. Sheridan is a former walk-on QB at Michigan and a guy who was a Pop Warner legend in the East Lansing area in the late 1990s when his dad was an assistant coach for Nick Saban.



INDIANA PERSONNEL

QB JACK TUTTLE (6-4, 212, R-Jr., San Marcos, Calif)
* Was a four-star recruit, ranked No. 104 in the nation and No. 16 in California.
* Signed with Utah. Transferred to Indiana after one year at Utah.
* In his first career start, last year at Wisconsin, he was 13-of-22 for 130 against the Badgers.
* In relief of Penix last year at Maryland, he was 5-of-5 for 31 yards.
* In a 26-20 loss to Mississippi in the Outback Bowl, he was 26-of-45 for 201 yards and rushed for 26 yards.
* I rewatched the Outback Bowl last night. He was a dinker and dunker in that game. He really relied on the now-graduated Whop Philyor as his binky in that game. He targeted Philyor a whopping 23 times in that game for 17 receptions, many of them on safe checkdowns after looking elsewhere first.

* Slides his feet pretty well in the pocket while keeping his shoulders square and his trigger cocked.

* Sometimes gets happy feet and drifts in the pocket away from his throw. That got him in trouble for an INT against Penn State.

* I haven’t seen a lot from him in terms of really gripping and ripping a 25-yard out or anything like that. Maybe he has that in him, but I’ve not seen it demonstrated yet.

His 76-yard TD pass to third-string TE against Idaho was a 20-yard crossing route, with yards after the catch. Not bad.

He’s a good, solid game manager type. Just because Penix is out, don’t assume that’s a game-ender for the Hoosiers. Like I said, there’s a chance he is a clean 15 for 25 or something like that in this game and Indiana wins and Hoosier fans come out of it thinking they were glad they had Tuttle in this game rather than Penix.


RUNNING GAME

Indiana rushed for a healthy 152 yards against Cincinnati’s well-respected defense (4.1 per carry).

Indiana was held to 69 yards rushing (24 carries) by Penn State.

Indiana tailback Stephen Carr rushed 25 times for 109 yards against WKU. When factoring in team losses and sacks, Indiana rushed for 134 yards on 39 carries (3.4 per) against Western Kentucky.

It was so long ago it barely means anything this week, but Indiana rushed 31 times for 77 yards against Iowa (2.4 per).


RB STEPHEN CARR (6-1, 215, Sr., Gardena, Calif.)
* USC transfer.
* Was a four-star recruit, ranked No. 5 in California and No. 38 in the nation.
* His 118-yard game against Indiana was his first 100-yard rushing game since his freshman year at USC.
* Good size, good ability, not a great difference-maker from what I’ve seen. Breaks some tackles, as you would expect. Not a ton of agility. Not quite as good as the man he replaced, Stevie Scott, who left early for the NFL, but similar style.
* Not as good or dangerous, from what I’ve seen, as Rutgers’ Isaih Pacheco.
* Carr’s back-up was a good one, Tim Baldwin. But he entered the portal after the Penn State game.
* Now, two walk-ons are his primary back-ups.

Carr’s stats:

* vs Penn State: 15 carries, 50 yards.
* vs Cincinnati: 21 carries, 51 yards.
* vs Iowa: 19 carries, 57 yards.
* vs Idaho: 22 carries, 118 yards.

Last year at USC, he started three of six games. He rushed for 176 yards on the year on 46 carries (3.8 per) with two TDs. He caught 10 passes for 64 yards.
* He rushed for 81 yards on 11 carries against Arizona.

* For his career at USC, he rushed for 1,329 yards (5.0 per) with 12 TDs.
* He rushed for 396 yards as a junior in 2019 while starting one game.
* He rushed for 384 yards as a sophomore, with one start.
* In 2017, he rushed for 363 yards (5.6 per).


RB 22 DAVION ERVIN-POINDEXTER (5-11, 190, Jr., Merrilville, Ind.)
* Walk-on.
+ 37-yard run in the fourth quarter on third-and-seven surprise run with 10 minutes to go against Cincinnati. That was his only carry.
* He has eight carries in his career.


RECEIVERS

[WR D.J. Matthews is out for the year with an ACL. He was a transfer from Florida State. They needed him to make an impact. He was looking quite good prior to the injury against Western Kentucky. He had five catches for 120 yards against Cincinnati).

WR 3 TY FRYFOGLE (6-2, 205, Sr., Lucedale, Miss.)
* Third-team All-American last year.
* Big Ten Receiver of the Year last year.
* Last year against Michigan State, he had 11 catches for 20 yards and two TDs, including a 65-yard TD.
* But he did the same thing against Ohio State with seven catches for 218 yards and three TDs.
* He didn’t go pro for some reason and thus far has had just an okay season. He has had more than five catches in a game only once all year, and that was against Western Kentucky.
* Had three dropped passes against Cincinnati.
* Had 10 catches for 98 yards against WKU.
* Had five catches for 48 yards against Penn State, with a long of 27.
* Had five catches for 84 yards against Iowa.
* Had five catches for 29 yards against Idahao.
* Had only one catch for 13 yards against Cincinnati.

* Not sure what’s going on with him, he always has the potential to dominate a game.


WR 13 MILES MARSHALL (6-4, 212, Jr., Lilburn, Ga.)

* Was a 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 90 in Georgia. Had offers from Vanderbilt, Virginia, Wake Forest, Purdue.
* The team’s fourth-leading receiver (third when not counting Matthews), with eight catches on the year.
+ Got open on an out-and-up against Penn State for a 34-yard gain in the second quarter. Maximum protection on that play.
Look for Indiana to try to repeat a double move deep shot like that at least once on Saturday. That was his only catch against PSU.
* Had five catches for 64 yards against WKU.


WR 18 Javon Swinton (6-2, 187, Soph., Stafford, Va.)

* Was a 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 22 in Virginia.
* Had offers from Rutgers, South Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest.
* Has five catches for 61 yards on the year. .
* Had four catches for 52 yards n the Outback bowl.
- Failed to win a 50-50 ball on a deep fly route with 3:44 to go against Cincinnati in a 6-point game. Incomplete.


WR 10 David Ellis, 6-1, 214, Clinton Township (Mich.) Chippewa Valley
* Was a 5.5 three-star recruit, ranked No. 34 in Michigan.
* Was an October commitment over MAC schools.
* Has only one catch on the year for a loss of 1.
* Had 11 catches last year, and 16 in 2019.
* Had 16 rushes lats year for 61 yards. Is a former tailback.


TIGHT ENDS

TE 86 PEYTON HENDERSHOT (6-4, 254, Sr., North Salem, Ind.)
* Was a 5.4 two-star recruit, unranked.
* Had offers from MAC schools and Cincinnati.
* Was third-team All-Big Ten in each of the past two seasons.
* Big target, reliable, decent quickness. Terrific college tight end.
* Had seven catches for 100 yards against WKU, including a 26-yarder.
* Five catches for 88 yards against Penn State, including a 35-yarder.
+ 16-yard TD on counter boot negative drag vs Cincinnati.

MSU's LB and safety coverage vs the TE will be key in this game as Indiana's downfield passing with Tuttle likely won't be as aggressive as it would have been with Penix.

(TE 89 Matt Bjorson, 6-3, 241, Sr., Hinsdale, Ill.)
* Decent tight end, nice catch and run on a bootleg vs Cincy.
* Has only three catches on the year for 24 yards.


OFFENSIVE LINE

* Left side of the o-line quite good with double teams and zone blocking against Cincinnati.
* Not a great o-line, but I didn’t see any glaring weaknesses. Good, solid, Big Ten o-line. Similar to Michigan State.


LT 70 LUKE HAGGARD (6-7, 305, Sr., Petaluma, Calif)
* juco transfer.
* Was a 5.5 three-star juco recruit with offers from Oregon State, Fresno State, Nevada, UConn.
* Started four games last year for a team that led the Big Ten in fewest sacks allowed.

LG 56 MIKE KATIC (6-4, 312, Soph., Gibsonia, Pa.)
* 5.5 three-star recruit, ranked No. 18 in Pennsylvania.
* June commitment with offers from Boston College, Army, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, Louisville.
* Started four games last year.


C 72 DYLAN POWELL (6-3, 310, Grad., Hannibal, Mo.)
* Was a 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 11 in Missouri.
* Signed with Stanford after taking official visits to Iowa State, Purdue, Virginia Tech.
* Grad transfer from Stanford.
* Started four games last year as a senior, opted to come back for one more.
* Started three games for Stanford in 2018.

RG 76 MATTHEW BEDFORD (6-6, 310, Jr., Cordova, Tenn.)
* Was a 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 26 in Tennessee.
* Summer commitment with offers from Mississippi State and South Carolina.
* Pretty quick with the upper body when reacting to a rusher or combo-blocking out to a LB.
* Third-year starter.
* Indiana promoted him for the preseason Outland Trophy Watch List.
* Quick feet on a shovel power against Cincinnati.
* They don’t run power a lot, but he can move and deliver a blow when they do.


RT 77 CALEB JONES (6-8, 362, Sr., Indianapolis)
* Was a three-star recruit by Rivals.com. Ranked No. 12 in Indiana by ESPN.
* Also had offers from Illinois, Purdue, MACs.
* He’s so tall, though, that he doesn’t have to move much to swallow up pass rushers.
* Sometimes it might look like he’s moving slow but he still manages to stay wide enough on guys and can react inside. Usually. But he has some negative moments.

- Got belted backward kind of easily during a TFL late in the 1H against Cincinnati. Cincy’s DE just bull rushed into Jones’ inside pec and easily tossed him aside for the TFL.

- I wasn’t impressed with this guy Jones last year after seeing him allow three sacks in a short period of time against Penn State. Still has some balance/power issues in the pass rush but he has improved.


DEFENSIVE STYLE & CHARACTERISTICS

* Indiana was so good on defense last year. Better than the sum of its parts. They were tricky. They were shape-shifter. They were extremely multiple and hard to figure out with their coverages, but stayed on the same page. That led to sacks and interceptions - every week.

Last year, Indiana led the Big Ten in interceptions with 17. This year, second to last with only two on the year.

Last year, Indiana was No. 2 in the Big Ten in sacks, just one behind Iowa. This year, Indiana ranks dead last in the Big Ten in sack with seven.

They graduated a pretty good defensive tackle in Jerome Johnson, who had three sacks and is trying to bounce around as an NFL free agent.

But their sack totals were borne out of a balance of blitzing LBs and DBs. LB Micah McFadden led Indiana in sacks last year with six. Their team sack totals was a collective accumulation, not based on one or two d-line standouts. In other words, their talent was pretty good, but their coaching was great.

With the new coordinator, sacks and INTs have fallen off. I don’t think it’s a coincidence. I’m not saying the new coordinator isn’t good. I’m saying the previous one was difference-maker.

* McFadden is an outstanding pass rusher as a linebacker, usually up the middle, sometimes bending with a stunt.

* Indiana still tackles well. I noticed time after time players getting good wraps on guys, and some good physicality at times. Out of curiosity I checked Indiana’s PFF tackling grades. They were strong. Eleven Indiana players graded out at 75.0 or higher in tackling against Penn State. By known comparison (meaning, something you can gauge it by), Michigan State had only five players grade out at 75.0 or higher in tackling against Rutgers (Xavier Henderson, Angelo Grose, Chester Kimbrough, Michael Dowell and Drew Jordan).

[By the way, X Henderson tackled like a mad man at Rutgers. Not only did he tackle well, he did it at warp speed, with great angles, scraping and pursuing to shut off runs before they could get started. This was after Henderson had one of his poorer tackling performances against WKU. He really came back strong.]

* Last year, I noticed that Indiana was very good at arriving on time to take on blocks, defeat blocks with the correct shoulder, and keep everything square. They played as a true 11-man unit.

They aren’t a bad defense this year at all. But they don’t strike me as being as sharp and precise as they were last year. Last year, you could do how-to videos by using their defense.

A lot of the same guys are back. That’s why they were ranked high. Still good individuals, but they don’t have badass bashers on the d-line to put initial holes in people.

* With as often as Indiana blitzes linebackers, it seems like short curls, hooks and sit-down routes over the middle should be open for safe passage. But sometimes IU will give you that, if down and distance favors them.

* They will stem and shift at pre snap on the d-line. Mix that with what should be a loud home crowd and MSU’s o-line could get coaxed into some false starts. A lot of visiting teams in college football this year have struggled with crowd noise and playing on the road because no one had to do it last year.

* They do a lot of zone pressures. That’s when it’s a four-man rush, but someone from the back seven rushes the passer. It’s usually a linebacker rushing while a d-end, like 92 Bryant, drops into a short-area zone coverage.


RUSH DEFENSE

* Held Cincinnati to 118 yards on 36 carries. Cincy’s top tailback, J. Ford, had 66 yards on 20 carries.



DEFENSIVE PERSONNEL

DEFENSIVE LINE

* Interesting cast of transfers, some of whom were big-time recruits.

Overall, No. 10 is a pass rush threat. The DTs are solid, unspectacular. The d-line depth is okay, but doesn’t seem to be as many interchangeable parts as last year.


DE 10 RYDER ANDERSON (6-6, 266, Grad., Katy, Texas)
* Transfer from Mississippi.
* Was a 5.5 three-star recruit.
* Had offers from Arkansas, Colorado and C-USA’s.
* Has three sacks on the year and 29 tackles.
* Last year, he had 2.5 sacks and led Ole Miss in hurries.
* He is tall, rangy with extension vs the run.
* Excellent pass rush threat. Had a blind side sack and fumble against Cincinnati in the second quarter. Looked quick, lean, long and athletic on that play against a redshirt-freshman. Rip move.
* His athleticism allows him to drop into pass coverage nicely when they zone blitz.


(13 Jaren Handy 6-6, 255, Hattiesburg, Miss.)
* Transfer from Auburn.
* Was a four-star recruit, ranked No. 135 in the nation. Also had official visits to Florida, Mississippi State and LSU.
* Had three tackles and one sack in two years at Auburn.
* A little lean and stiff, maybe like Michael Fletcher but I need to see more of this guy Handy. Looks intriguing, just haven't seen him enough.

(6 DE James Head, 6-5, 262, Sr., Miami)
* Was a 5.7 three-star recruit. Also had offers from Michigan State, Baylor, Nebraska, Oregon, Tennessee and others.
* Started seven games last year and had 17 tackles but has yet to play this year due to an undisclosed injury. Insiders say he is expected to return for this game.

DT 94 DEMARCUS ELLIOTT (6-4, 307, Garden City, Kan.)
* Transfer from Garden City CC.
* Was a 5.3 two-star recruit with offers from UMass and Tennessee Chattanooga.
* Third-year starter.
* As a sophomore in 2019 he had 35 tackles, including five TFLs.
+ Good closing quickness for a big ol’ dude.

(41 Beau Robbins 6-5, 260, Soph., Carmel, Ind.)
* Was a four-star recruit, ranked No. 5 in Indiana.
* Solid against double-teams.
* Did not see action in 2020 or ’19.


DT 99 WESTON KRAMER (6-2, 290, Grad., Naperville, Ill.)
* Grad transfer from Northern Illinois.
* Was Second-Team All-MAC last year.
* Average when two-gapping, doesn’t get penetration, but doesn’t get beat, however, he’s not great at using his hands to disengage.

(55 CJ Person, 6-3, 292, Soph., Montgomery, Ala.)
* Was a 5.5 three-star recruit, ranked No. 43 in Alabama. Also had offers from mid-majors.


BULL 92 ALFRED BRYANT (6-2, 250, Sr., Fresno, Texas).
* Was a 5.6 three-star recruit. Also had offers from Arkansas, Cal, Colorado, Illinois, K-State and others.
* He is usually a stand-up DE. Solid player. Sturdy. Not necessarily explosive off the edge. He’s just kind of a guy.
* Has 1.5 TFLs on the year.
* Started three games at DE last year.


LINEBACKERS

* Their linebackers are excellent. To put it in familiar terms, 47 McFadden is a thicker, more experienced and faster (and taller) version of Cal Haladay.

His sidekick, 4 Cam Jones, is better than Quavaris Crouch. Jones isn’t as big, but he’s not small. He hits hard, and he’s more consistent and trustworthy than Crouch. He moves side-to-side while reading a little smarter and instinctively.


LB 47 MICAH McFADDEN
* Was a 5.4, two-star recruit.
* Had offers from Cobston College and mid-majors.
* Third-team All-America last year.
* Led the Big Ten in sacks last year.
* Good quickness when blitzing up the middle.
* Good sideline-to-sideline speed.


LB 4 CAM JONES (6-3, 224, Sr., Memphis)
* Was a 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 26 in Tennessee.
* Also had offers from Tennessee, Memphis, Missouri and Wake Forest.
* He is a wrecking ball. He moves really well sideline to sideline, and bashes offensive linemen on his way to the ball carrier.
* Was Honorable Mention All-Big Ten last year. He’s better than that this year. One of the best LBs I’ve seen in the Big Ten this year.
* Led team in QB hits last year.
* Reads and gets downhill very quickly and with physicality.



HUSKY 9 MARCELINO McCRARY-BALL (6-0, 214, Sr., Roswell, Ga.)
* Was a 5.4, two-star recruit.
* Official visits to Tulane and Middle Tennessee State.
* Sixth year senior.
* Had a major injury prior to last season and missed a storybook year. Is driven to have a follow-up this year.
* Was Honorable Mention All-Big Ten in 2018.
* I haven’t focused in on him, but he hasn’t jumped off the screen this year. I don’t know if he has lost a step.
+ INT in the first quarter against Cincinnati. Five-man rush, with McFadden and Jones rushing as LBs, hurried the passer. McCrary-Ball with the tip drill INT.


DEFENSIVE BACKS


* They all play their angles well, and with quickness and physicality in coverage or as tackles. No weaknesses out here.

* Penn State WR Jahan Dotson, a 5-foot-11 guy who is being hyped as one of the top two or three WRs in the Big Ten, had eight catches for 84 yards with 2 TDs against Indiana.

* Starting CBs 2 Taylor and 3 Mullen will be gametime decisions in terms of health, according to Tom Allen.


CB 2 REESE TAYLOR (5-11, 185, Sr., Indianapolis)
* 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 11 in Indiana.
* Summer commitment with offers from Wisconsin, Minnesota, Purdue, Iowa.
* Quality veteran player.
* Was fourth in the Big Ten in pass break-ups last year.
+ Was tested deep early by Cincinnati. Taylor ran with the receiver well, stacked him, in off man-to-man.
+ Good open field tackle inside the 5-yard line against Penn State in run support.
* Good tackler.
+ Decent job in press vs WR Dotson of Penn State on a deep shot on third-and-one. Decent jam, decent hip turn. Dotson is so good that he got a half step on him, but QB couldn’t connect on a difficult-angle pass. Good coverage. But Taylor pulled up a little gimpy at the end of the play and was helped off the field. He ended up missing about 30 snaps in that game.
* 41 snaps against Penn State.


(31 Bryant Fitzgerald 6-0, 208, Sr., Indianapolis)

* Was a 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 7 in Indiana.
* Started eight games last year at Husky Back.
* Had three interceptions as a freshman in 2018.
* 35 snaps against Penn State, and graded out well.


CB 3 TIAWAN MULLEN (5-10, 180, Jr., Fort Lauderdale)
* Was a four-star recruit, ranked No. 43 in Florida.
* Also took official visits to Pitt and Nebraska.
* 2020 All-America.
* 2019, led Big Ten in pass break-ups and was honorable mention All-Big Ten as a freshman.
* Has been slowed by an injury.
* He warmed up in pads against PSU, but then the pads came off and he was a surprising scratch at game time due to a leg injury. If he was that close to playing two weeks ago, I would expect him to be fine two weeks later to play in this game, as long as he didn’t reinjure anything during practice.
- Terrific player but was beaten on a 19-yard go route for a TD by a 6-foot-2 WR for Cincinnati. Just out-rebounded by him. Can Michigan State replicate that? Tre Mosley can play big at times, but MSU’s biggest WRs have yet to break through - Keon Coleman, Christian Fitzpatrick, Ian Stewart.


(Noah Pierre, 5-11, 182, Jr., Hialeah, Fla.)
* Played 42 snaps against Penn State with Mullen out.
* Was a 5.4 two-star recruit.

(CB 23 Jaylin Williams, 6-0, 182, Sr., Memphis)
* Was a 5.5 three-star recruit, ranked No. 30 in Tennessee. Committed to Indiana over mid-majors.
* Was second-team All-Big Ten last year.
* Six career INTs.
* Is back from concussion protocol two weeks ago.


SS 1 DEVON MATTHEWS (6-2, 205, Sr., Jacksonville, Fla.)
* 5.4 two-star recruit who also took official visits to Cincinnati and UConn.
* Third-team All-Big Ten by coaches last year.
* Graded out No. 1 on the defense against Penn State with an 85.0 overall score. No one for Michigan State scored that high against Rutgers.
* He has missed games this year due to injury.
* Pretty good in run support, scraping across, active and fast.


FS 0 RAHEEM LAYNE (6-1, 200, Sr., Deland, Fla.)
* Was a 5.4 two-star recruit. Also had an official visit to Minnesota. Had offers from Iowa and Purdue.
* Graded out at a team-high 82.5 against Penn State.
* He missed the late stages of the Penn State game with a leg injury. Allen says he has been practicing this week and should be good to go.
+ Good pass break-up on third-and-6 vs Cincinnati in the second quarter. Really good job reading the QB’s eyes and converging toward the receiver before the ball was released.
+ INT vs Penn State in the first quarter playing the hook area in one of those confusing Indiana coverages, taking away a crossing route.
- Missed a tackle on a third-and-one in the second quarter against Penn State which got out for a big gain to the 4-yard line. Playing behind DT 99 Kramer who got stalemated by the PSU offensive guard on the play.
= Allowed an 8-yard TD to PSU WR Dotson on a slant and go. Great catch, up high. Not a lot Layne could have done in quarters coverage.

SPECIAL TEAMS
- Allowed a kickoff return for touchdown against Cincinnati.
* DJ Matthews had an 80-yard punt return for a TD against Idaho, but he’s out for the year with an injury.
* Reese Taylor was honorable mention All-Big Ten punt returner last year. Has four punt returns this year with a long of 15 yards.

ADD IT ALL UP

Difficult test with little margin for error for Michigan State.

If Michigan State is as sloppy as last week, they will get in severe trouble this week.

The replacement QB, Tuttle, might be more reliable than Penix right now.

As long as Michigan State avoids sloppy mistakes, the Spartans’ play-making edge at RB, WR and QB has a good chance to make the difference.

Indiana’s d-line is okay, and their LBs will slug for awhile. But I think MSU’s o-line can hold a narrow edge over the Indiana defensive front over the long haul.

Indiana’s secondary is good, especially when healthy, but not as tricky last year, and doesn’t have the pass rush it had last year. Thorne won’t have an easy day finding openings, but MSU’s play design has been good enough to get the job done in this part of the matchup - again by a narrow margin.

MSU’s d-line and defensive front should hold a slight edge over a decent Indiana o-line and decent Indiana RB/QB combination.

Indiana has talent at TE with Hendershot and at WR with Fryfogle, but MSU’s pass rush should continue to be a factor, and I like MSU’s pass defense in the red zone.

Indiana will land some blows. Michigan State has to make sure crowd noise doesn’t have an impact on false starts and delay of game penalties. We’ve seen more of those all over the country this year as teams have tried to get reacclimated to playing on the road.

Indiana’s crowd was great against Cincinnati. They still have some spirit. They’ll be oiled up for this one.

Tough game. Michigan State needs to be tough and sharp. Michigan State has an edge in play-making ability at the offensive skill positions, but the margin for error is slim. Indiana will be desperate, and capable.

Was very impressed with the crowd…some empty seats…but kinda reminded me of the good-ol-days. Well over 6000. State played very hard and gritty the whole game. Led 1-0…got tied 1-1 into the 3rd….got a late goal and an empty netter.

At least we scored

Here is my story on Payton Thorne, who cares a lot more about winning than personal recognition.

I think Thorne understands well that personal recognition is attached to success and at the quarterback position he is going to be judged by the games on back end of Michigan State's difficult schedule.

Thorne is a class act. Very task-motivated. Obviously, respected by his teammates.

It's hard to revitalize a program without a rock-solid quarterback and Michigan State has its guy in Thorne..

Here is my recap of Walker's Jim Rome show appearance.

Walker did a great job. Came across really well.

Fun night

I cant make it and have two tickets to the game tonight (Oct 9). Great seats. Free. My only ask is that you use them and don't sell them.

Send me a private message

I did not see Paul or Jim in Indy this week, but I was there in person. I usually do not so this, but here is the piece that I wrote about what I heard:


I thought there were some very interesting and subtle comments. Here is the what I found most intriguing:

• We will see Malik at the 3 some this year. I asked him directly and Izzo made a comment to that effect as well.
• Hall has the look of a rising leader. I am not sure if he is 100% ready for it, but I like what I saw from him and what he said. He talked a lot about being connected and making sure his teammates all have a voice. He definitely implied that the leadership last year at the player level was not there. He said all the right things on Friday. But, the proof will be in the pudding. He might be MSU's most important player this year, but due to off the court stuff.
• I am not as sold on Gabe as a leader. Don't get me wrong... I love the kid, but he seems a little too chill and his attitude is more just "go out there and win." I am less convinced that he knows how to lead.
• Izzo said Bingham is stronger
• Izzo is quite funny in person, but he rambles
• I got to ask Izzo one question about his bucket list. He gave a funny answer that wound up saying that MSU and UofM should play a game on Northern Michigan's campus
• All the players look just a bit shorter than I think they should in person, both on MSU's team and across the board.
• Suzie Merchant was there as well, and she is honestly a very impressive speaker and leader.

Enjoy!

MSU on a pair of goals from Griffin Loughran (both power play goals) built a 2-0 lead in the first 10 minutes.

Air Force cut it to 2-1 while it was 4 on 4.

MSU had a 5 minute power play in the first period that was shortened by a penalty - the led to the goal. MSU did convert on the 5 minute power play though.

SOG were 13-5 in the first MSU.

Currently 7:20 to go in the 2nd, still 2-1 MSU.