And two key plays in that category from last Saturday's game at Indiana:

https://michiganstate.rivals.com/news/how-msu-and-dantonio-try-to-avoid-targeting-penalties

Pre-Snap Read: MSU vs Indiana (The Macro)

By Jim Comparoni
SpartanMag.com

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. - This is probably going to be a good scrap.

A good scrap is when two teams go back and forth in a somewhat evenly-matched game, with neither team having knockout talent. Maybe Michigan State will prove to have knockout talent, but so far this year Michigan State has only shown flashes of TKO talent.

Michigan State has been playing with a few too many loose screws.

Indiana is less-talented than Michigan State, but has more of its crap together. So far.

Michigan State has had two weeks to prepare, and an off-week to stew over the aggravating loss at Arizona State.

The big x-factor is whether Michigan State has made progress toward tightening those screws, whether Michigan State will emerge from the bye week looking more like the fringe Top 10 team many of us expected the Spartans to be prior to the season.

Indiana will be looking to plant a flag.

“We are going to have to play our best game of the season, have our best week of preparation, execute at the highest level in all three phases,” said Indiana coach Tom Allen.

Indiana wants a test. It wants to test itself against a Big Ten contender. If they can get a Spartan pelt, it would be a landmark stepping stone for the Allen era at Indiana. This is big for them.

It’s big for Michigan State, also. Michigan State wants to gain some traction and show clear signs of being capable of delivering another standout season. A loss, and Michigan State will be sent into reeling reassessment and recuperation, not only for the season but also possibly for the program. Three straight dull-edged performances would be alarming.

“Things are going to get rectified,” Mark Dantonio said confidently last week. I tend to believe him. He’s pretty good at these things.

SETTING THE TABLE

Indiana is looking for its seventh 4-0 start in school history, the most recents coming in 2015, 1990, 1986 and 1985. Prior to that, they did it in 1967 and 1910. That’s all. 4-0 is a big deal for this program. Beating Michigan State to get to 4-0 would create major buzz about the Hoosiers - at least in Monroe County, Ind.

* Dantonio is 8-1 against Indiana.

* Indiana is trying to win consecutive home games vs Michigan State for the first time since 1991 and ’93.

* Indiana is 1-33 in its last 34 games against ranked Big Ten opponents (the one win was against MSU’s falling-fast 2016 team).

BODY OF WORK

Indiana’s is 3-0:

Indiana 38, Florida International 28

Indiana 20, Virginia 16

Indiana 38, Ball State 10

Indiana led Ball State 24-3 at halftime last week. Ball State had played Notre Dame tough a week earlier.

THE LATEST

* What will the Michigan State offensive line look like?

I’m expecting Cole Chewins to return at left tackle for Michigan State. He played one snap against ASU but didn’t feel right, and exited.

Luke Campbell has been pretty good at left tackle. Jordan Reid had some problems early in the Utah State game but has been solid at right tackle.

If Chewins starts at LT, will Campbell be the starter at RT? If so, Reid could become a quality utility guy off the bench (or Campbell could become one).

Also, I’m expecting Matt Allen to start at center. Tyler Higby had problems against ASU. Among other things, his body language wasn’t good. Confidence could be a problem for him.

I have no inside info on this, but I’m expecting an o-line with Chewins at LT and Allen at C. That’ll be a vastly different starting lineup, with a chance for establish a brand new mode of operation up front.

The o-line took a lot of criticism last week. I mentioned on The Underground Bunker that I thought Michigan State graded out pretty well at four of the five o-line positions.

MSU’s offensive problems last week mainly came down to three empty trips into the red zone. Michigan State penetrated the red zone four times on 10 possessions, which is a pretty good rate.

One TD in four trips into the red zone (25 percent) is terrible. If you do that, you are one big play away from getting into serious trouble, and that’s what happened when ASU struck on a deep pass in the fourth quarter to tie the game.

The three red zone stoppages can be traced to three errors in the center box, two of which involved Higby getting beat. The other one was likely a case of David Beedle not closing his area when blocking down on first-and-goal at the 3 (leading to a loss of three yards and then an INT on the next snap).

From there, Brian Lewerke didn’t play well enough to rescue the situation. The INT wasn’t good. He left the pocket when he didn’t need to, probably due to lack of confidence in the center of the line.

When Michigan State gained possession of a tie game with about 6 minutes to go, the Spartans moved for a first down at ASU’s 45-yard line. Michigan State chose to go to the air, and would live to regret it. Lewerke took a sack, and then another, and Michigan State had to punt, and never got the ball back.

Lewerke accepted blame for holding the ball too long. They were un-Lewerke-like errors. And they were committed at about 2:15 a.m., our time.

So now Lewerke needs to bounce back. And Michigan State will need at least a B-plus version of Lewerke at Indiana.

I wasn’t surprised that Michigan State was in severe trouble late in the ASU game. I predicted that. I said I wouldn’t be surprised if Michigan State was trailing, AGAIN, with five minutes to go, as was the case against Utah State.

But I thought Lewerke was the difference-maker, the trump card. I thought he would find open receivers and make the plays to give Michigan State the edge.

We were correct that it came down to Lewerke trying to rescue the situation, but he wasn’t up to his usual standard.

He will need to be up to his standard this weekend because Indiana wants The Old Brass Spittoon, and wants to feel even better about itself.

FINAL ANALYSIS FIRST

Indiana’s run game is good. MSU’s run defense is very good. This is a quality, interesting, Big Ten style matchup.

Indiana has rushed for 213, 237 and 255 yards in its first three games. Those are terrific numbers against mediocre competition.

MSU ranks No. 1 in the nation in rush defense, allowing 34.5 yards per game. That’s partly because teams have found more success going to the air. But opponents’ 1.3 yards-per-carry average is no fluke. Michigan State is stubborn against the run, ESPECIALLY inside.

Most of Indiana’s run game success is orchestrated with interior runs, via the inside zone.

Their RBs may break off the runs off the right edge or the left edge, but the primary blocking and run lanes take place between the tackles.

Indiana likes the run the inside zone over and over. Their bread-and-butter plays happen to match up directly against MSU’s strength.

That should be an edge for Michigan State. SHOULD be.

And I think it will be.

THE MACRO: INDIANA RUN GAME vs MSU RUN DEFENSE

Indiana’s run game is legit. Their o-line is good. All five o-linemen are good, experienced, consistent. They do a little bit of holding, but officials can’t throw a flag every time.

Indiana has a good run game, a methodical run game. They don’t vary their run plays all that much, but they haven’t needed to, so far.

They get good pile-moving chunk yardage, but they aren’t the type of offense that will turn a little bit of daylight into a 75-yard TD in an instant.

They might break a play or two against Michigan State, but I wouldn’t expect consistent success.

**

Last year, Indiana had a pretty good running attack, but not as good as this year.

This year, Indiana is getting great numbers from true freshman running back Stevie Scott (6-2, 236, Syracuse, NY)

The Book On Scott:

21 RB STEVIE SCOTT, FR (6-2, 236, Syracuse, NY)

* A big September story as an impact true freshman RB, one of the top impact true freshmen of the season so far in the Big Ten.

* Was a three-star recruit, ranked No. 11 in New York by Rivals.com.

* Was originally a Rutgers commit, but flipped to Indiana near signing day.

* Same hometown as Mike Hart, IU’s running backs coach.

* Played only three games as a high school senior.

* 31 rushes for 204 yards rushing vs Virginia.

* 18 rushes for 114 yards vs Ball State.

* 70 yards vs FIU

+ Runs with a good combination of vision, cutting ability and some power. Has good, not great, speed.

+ Decent job scooting to daylight on 40-yard TD run vs UVa on an inside zone.

- Fumbled inside the 5-yard line last week after receiving a swing pass out of the backfield.

* Varied it a little bit last week with a good lead trap for 19 yards in the 2Q, but mainly stuck to inside zone plays. The less varied a running attack is, and the more a running attack relies on inside zone, the better chance Michigan State has to stop them cold.

***

Last year, Michigan State kept a lid on Indiana’s run game, but Indiana didn’t give up on the run game. Indiana attempted 35 running plays (for 94 yards). Their long run of the day was good for only 8 yards. But they kept trying, and they remained in the game, and lost 17-9. One bounce here or there, and IU would have beaten Michigan State for a second straight year.

I don’t think Indiana will surrender on the ground and go to the air and become a 65 percent pass team like Utah State did. (Utah State prefers to be a 50-50 run/pass team, but altered its approach against Michigan State).

Indiana offensive coordinator Mike DeBord was the OC at Michigan from 1997-99 and again from 2006-2007.

His Indiana offense doesn’t look anything like his offenses at Michigan. But he has a lot Michigan/Lloyd Carr sensibilities to his game. He didn’t give up on the run game last year and he isn’t likely to give up on the run game this year.

When they go to the air, they almost always have a shallow crosser or drag route as a valve, as did his Michigan offenses.

He’s become a spread tempo team after his two years as OC for Butch Jones at Tennessee in 2015 and ’16.

**

Indiana controlled the line of scrimmage against Virginia, but “went to the well too many times,” in my opinion in that game, continued to run the inside zone over and over. Wet weather had something to do with those choices. But Indiana kept running it and running it, and then would get slowed down into a third-and-three situation, and would fail to pick it up, and thereby led only 20-16 through most of the fourth quarter and had to survive a Hail Mary pass in the final seconds.

Indiana punted three times inside the Virginia 45-yard line in the fourth quarter, failing to put the game away.

**

Indiana will run spread offense, and two different speeds of uptempo. They’ll dabble in the 9-second ultra fast tempo that Utah State ran. They’ll do that in the red zone, and on other occasions, especially if their inside zone run game gets going.

But they are mainly what would be described as a semi-fast uptempo team.

They are one of the more vanilla uptempo spreads you will find, but it’s been effective for them this year. Last year, they went 5-7.

**

Indiana’s run game is good, but they will need to find alternate avenues against Michigan State.

Indiana loves to throw the deep fade against press coverage. Michigan State will play a lot of press coverage, whether in man-to-man or quarters “man-match” zone.

When I say Indiana likes the deep fade, I mean the 25-yard fade, not the deep “bomb.”

They’ll throw the fade to some receivers with good size, and they’ll throw to the back shoulder on those fades, which can be difficult to cover.

But MSU’s cornerbacks have been very good, percentage-wise, against deep shots this year. Indiana is facing low-percentage probability on those fade routes.

**

As for the rest of the pass game, and Indiana’s offense, so much of it will ride on the arm of sophomore QB Peyton Ramsey (6-2, 210, Cincinnati Elder).

He’s a little bit like Lewerke. He has good footspeed, similar to Lewerke. He gets out of trouble well.

He throws well from the pocket. He throws okay when on the move, but not as well as Lewerke.

His accuracy stats are excellent. He is completing 73 percent of his passes on the year (56 of 76). He has thrown five TDs and two INTs.

His stats:

vs FIU: 20 of 27 for 156 yards with 3 TDs and 1 INT.

vs Virginia: 16 of 22 for 150 yards with 2 TDs and 1 INT.

vs Ball State: 20 of 27 for 173 yards.

Last year against Michigan State, he was 22 of 34 for 158 yards.

**

He occasionally throws the nice dig route over the middle against two-deep zone.

His high completion percentage is impressive, but much of it is borne out of the system, and the ball-control passing that goes with it.

He is effective at this level, but doesn't have a classic, NFL-style quick-flick release. He kind of throws it like a ham, but it works.

His dad was his head coach at Cincinnati Elder. He had offers from Boston College, Illinois and MAC schools.

Aside from the deep fades and the spread offense swing passes, Ramsey has yet to establish himself as someone who can make all of the throws and carve you up with intermediate reads and darts. He may develop into that type of QB, and probably needs to in order for Indiana to win this game IF the Spartans are efficient on offense.

If Michigan State continues to struggle in the red zone and continues to play something south of C-plus football on offense, then Indiana won’t need Ramsey to be outstanding in order to win this game. They’ll need him only to be a bit better than he was last year against the Spartans - if MSU’s offense continues to sputter.

GAMEPLANS & MATCHUPS:

Indiana’s pass protection is quite good.

("quite good" is better than good. But not as good as "very good." That's my scale).

Their o-linemen are quite good in pass protection individually. Their RBs are good in blitz pick-ups. Their o-line rarely has communication breakdowns. This is a quality, experienced offensive line. Each o-lineman has at least 11 career starts and most of them have more than 20. Indiana has quietly become a good program for offensive lines.

Kenny Willekes usually gets loose one or two times through the course of a game against any opponent.

But down-in and down-out, Michigan State’s pass rush doesn’t cause worry for its opponents, especially with the standard front four.

Michigan State had tried to manufacture a pass rush with stunts, and varying which linebackers are joining the rush as a four or five-man rush in the nickel defense.

Michigan State hasn’t resorted to much blitzing. Against ASU, Michigan State decided it was too hazardous to blitz against the Sun Devils. They felt ASU had a good feel for picking up the blitzes and finding soft spots through the air. So Michigan State resorted to sticking with a four-man rush, and largely one-deep/man-to-man coverage. Michigan State was reasonably successful with it, and would have emerged from the game with good all-around numbers on defense if the Spartan offense had done anything to possess the ball in the fourth quarter and/or finished drives in the first three quarters.

So now, against Indiana, I’m not expecting the Michigan State standard four pass rush to get much heat against this quality Indiana offensive line.

Will Michigan State remain reluctant to blitz?

The combination of IU’s good pass protection and MSU’s mediocre pass rush will give Ramsey confidence to stay in the pocket. Can/will Michigan State try to upset that confidence by blitzing more than it did at ASU?

I think there’s a good chance Michigan State will in fact blitz more, and leave its CBs (and safeties) on an island against IU’s good (not great) WRs. It might not work out well for the Spartans, but Michigan State cornerbacks are good and improving. There is growing confidence in them. And Indiana’s WRs aren’t as dangerous as ASU’s.

One of the big x-factors of this game is whether MSU’s pressures and blitzes will get to Ramsey, and whether IU’s receivers and route combinations can spring receivers open in intermediate spots, and whether Ramsey can connect with them. (Well, this is basically the x-factor of any football game, these days. But the point is that Ramsey still has some things to prove in this category, as does MSU’s blitz packages and pass rush).

That being said, Indiana’s receivers have dropped a few pass this year, too many. And that had a hand in keeping Virginia undeservingly in the game.

MSU’S OFFENSE vs. INDIANA’s DEFENSE

Critics like to claim that MSU’s offense and play calling is predictable. But actually, it varies quite widely.

Last year’s game vs Indiana and the recent game at ASU illustrate this point.

Against ASU, the Spartans abandoned the run, attempted only one tailback run in the fourth quarter, and none in the final 14 minutes. Michigan State attempted only 15 tailback runs in the entire game. Michigan State attempted 41 pass plays (39 pass attempts and two sacks).

Against Indiana in 2017, Michigan State was criticized for running the tailback TOO MUCH. In that game, Michigan State’s play choices were almost the direct opposite of what we saw at ASU. Michigan State attempted only 29 passes but attempted 44 run plays (28 by tailbacks).

In that regard, MSU’s approach to this game is unpredictable. Will Michigan State stick to the ground like they did last year against the Hoosiers, or abandon the ground game like they did two weeks ago at ASU?

**

Last year, when Michigan State went with two backs in the backfield, Indiana met it with one or both safeties up near the linebacker box.

Sometimes we hear coaches claim that an opposing defense was “stacking the box,” and therefore the offense couldn’t run the ball. Well, last year Indiana legitimately stacked the box with one and sometimes two safeties.

Michigan State had two responses to this:

1. If Indiana was going to go with nine in the box vs a two-back/pro set formation, then the Spartans decided to take one WR off the field and go with six offensive linemen. Indiana couldn’t add any more to the box, so Michigan State added a blocker.

The results were mixed.

2. Michigan State went with play-action passing, an age-old answer to stacked boxes.

From the beginning of the second quarter on, Michigan State began six of its last seven drives with an I-formation, play-action pass. Again, with mixed results, including a deep pass interference drawn by Felton Davis on one occasion, and two incompletions when Cody White and Darrell Stewart were held.

**

Might we see the same cat and mouse this year?

Indiana loads the box, brings the safeties down.

Michigan State goes with play-action passing on first down? Indiana willing to resort to holding and interference if necessary.

And Michigan State goes to six offensive linemen vs the loaded box.

Or will Michigan State be more willing to go with one-back spread formations and attack through the air? I think we will see more of this choice, similar to what we saw at ASU, and less of the run-heavy choices of last year against the Hoosiers. Just a hunch. I’m not predicting success. I just think Michigan State will be less ground-oriented … UNLESS the coaches decided after film study of the ASU game that the Spartan offense got away from “who we are” and should have probed the run more.

So that’s why we play the games. There is mystery, even with two teams playing that are so familiar with one another. That’s why it’s going to be a scrap.

**

As for special teams, Indiana’s punt returner, J-Shun Harris, has game-changing potential every week, especially this week.

He had an 85-yard punt return for a TD last week. He has three career punt returns for TDs.

He’s a little dude with sudden acceleration. He’s a short-strider who can slalom quickly to open spaces.

He is courageous when fielding a punt. He will come forward and grab a short, low punt on the fly - and he might get a few of those from MSU’s emergency interim punter, Rocky Lombardi, or whoever handles punting duties for the Spartans.

If this game is close like last year’s a game-changing moment on special teams

**

ADD IT ALL UP

MSU’s B-game is better than Indiana’s B-game. But I don’t know if Michigan State is ready to harness its B-game.

Meanwhile, Indiana has already shown an A-minus game, last week against a Ball State team that had played Notre Dame tough a week earlier. Michigan State has yet to show anything above a C-minus game.

Michigan State has the potential to win this game by 10, but the Spartans also had the potential to score a touchdown at ASU on first-and-goal at the 3-yard line on their third possession of the game but managed to turn it into an interception.

It’s time for Michigan State to start meeting that potential. They’re focused, and they’re together, for now. They need to get some return on two weeks of angry focus, following the ASU loss.

Indiana’s level of belief is high. The Hoosiers felt they could have, should have beaten Michigan State last year. They feel they are better than last year’s 5-7 record and are eager to prove that there is tangible momentum in the Allen era. A victory over Michigan State would provide a big step toward affirmation.

Michigan State sees all of the little mistakes, missed opportunities and inches that worked against the Spartans in a maddening loss at Arizona State.

Expecting a Michigan State victory would be based on Michigan State harnessing a level of tidiness and accountability that we haven’t seen from them to this point. Picking Michigan State means you are betting on the rise. Do that at your own risk.

Indiana has used a good ground game to pound out three wins. That ground game likely won’t be productive in this game. If Indiana’s ground game get stuffed, will the Hoosiers stick with its inside zone game too long, or will they find a nice level of ground-air balance? Indiana’s ability to beat you with either hand will be tested in this game. I have my doubts about their wisdom in this area. And even if they are wise enough to scale back their ground offense and go to the air, I’m not sure they have the prowess to get it done against a good Michigan State pass defense (yes, I said a good Michigan State pass defense).

But what if Michigan State only scores 13 points again?

Then, Indiana will have enough offense, wisdom or not, to regain the Spittoon.

But I think Michigan State will score more than 13 (bold prediction). I think the o-line will show improvement, and Lewerke will be more efficient. It should add up to better than the 25 percent red zone success Michigan State showed at ASU. And it had better.

Let's get the run game going control the ball and win by 10+

THE MICRO

INDIANA DEFENSE:

Indiana’s run defense is a question mark, but I’m not ready to say it’s a weakness ready for harvesting this weekend.

Indiana allowed 204 yards rushing to Ball State. Ball State ran a tempo spread attack, not quite applicable to the way Michigan State will operate the run game.

Virginia rushed for 188, but 123 of those were by the QB in a zone read keeper scheme, which isn’t applicable to the way Michigan State will play offense.

**

Overall, Indiana has some good players at each level of the defense, but speed is a bit questionable in some areas of the back seven, and tackling isn’t consistently good back there.

That being said, inside linebacker Reakwon Jones (No. 7) is pretty good, defensive back Jon Crawford (No. 9) is good, slot linebacker Marcelino Ball (No. 42) is active, and cornerback Andre Brown (No. 14) is one of those underrated two-star Georgia DBs on his way to big things.

The supporting cast is just okay, but they are well-coached, and bound together with good same pageness.

They play A LOT of second- and third-stringers, maybe too many for their own good.

* Twenty-six different players posted tackles last week. They routinely play 30 or more guys on defense in each game. They’ll put a whole new front seven on the field for the beginning of a drive. Their second-string front seven are kind of like MAC-level starters, but they serve a purpose, keeping the actual Hoosier starters fresh.

The negative to that is any dropoff in talent, experience or ability from the first string to the second and even the third string.

When they go to the second string, their defensive front is functional but there is a dropoff. Michigan State can go to the run game when the second-string defensive front comes in, as was the case during the first FG drive vs ASU’s second string defensive front.

* Something to know: Two different IU players, a safety and their hybrid ‘star’ bandit type player, were beaten deep on wheel routes vs UVa. I assume they have fixed that, but don’t be surprised if Michigan State tests it. Ball State tried it on the opening drive but back-up LB T.D. Roof covered it.

MORE TIDBITS:

* Indiana had seven TFLs vs Ball State, by five different players.

* IU had problems with the jet sweep vs Florida International in week one. MSU loves that play, and variations of it. They'll test IU with it. Last year, MSU ran a reverse to Felton Davis for about 19 yards. So if IU reacts with too much flow to the fly sweep, it will be interesting to see if MSU flips it back the other way with a reverse.

* Indiana attacks upfield in the front seven, and plays a good bit of man-to-man in the back, so they are susceptible to the QB draw or QB scrambles. I would look for one or two long runs by Brian Lewerke in this game, and Michigan State may need it.

Attacking upfield might sound like something everybody does, but fewer teams are going wholesale upfield these days. More teams are hanging back and building a fence at the line of scrimmage rather than charging upfield and getting turned inside-out by read options. Tempo is also causing defenses to keep their d-linemen home more often, rather than charging upfield.

But Indiana charges straight-line upfield any chance they get.

* Let the record show that Indiana’s defense has allowed 28, 16 and 10 points. They haven’t played the best competition, but Michigan State (so far) doesn’t look like great competition on offense. Michigan State will try to change that this weekend.

THE SCHEME:

Indiana is mostly a 4-3, over, one-gapping defense. They’ll two-gap a little bit, but they mostly one-gap, which is what MSU’s o-line is accustomed to seeing in practice. Michigan State's o-line has been most comfortable against 4-3, over, one-gap defenses over the years, but they had trouble running the ball vs IU last year (due to IU bringing safeties up to help, as mentioned in the Macro Pre-Snap read).

In coverage, every team tries to disguise things. I think Indiana is better than most.

Examples:

* Against Virginia, on a third down, they showed press and then drop back into cover-two zone. QB tucked and ran and was tackled short of the first down.

* Against FIU, the Hoosiers showed press with two deep safeties against a three-WR formation. At the snap, one of the deep safeties jumped the slot receiver, and it became man-to-man. QB thought the slot WR had a free release and threw to him quick. Safety jumped the route, pick six.

* It’s not a great Indiana defense, but they have a good bit of their crap together.

THE PERSONNEL:

in order of merit:

7 ILB REAKWON JONES (6-2, 235, Jr., Lynn Haven, Fla.)

* Was a 5.5 three-star recruit. Also visited Florida Atlantic.

* Plays hard, plays straight, plays smart. Good enough speed.

* Dogged determination in pursuit. Looks heavier than 235.

* Solid, quality Big Ten middle linebacker.

9 DB JON CRAWFORD (6-2, 196, Sr., Largo, Fla.)

* Was a 5.5 three-star recruit.

* Also visited Iowa, North Carolina, Syracuse,

* Had a 33-yard INT return for a TD vs FIU.

+ Good in run support, coming forward at the proper angle, angling off of blocks, arriving at the ball efficiently.

* Capable player. Dependable, solid tackler.

* Good in full-tilt pursuit, at any angle.

* Real good pursuit speed and finish on an edge blitz last week.


14 CB ANDRE BROWN (6-0, 200, Jr., Decatur, Ga.)

* Two-star recruit from Decatur Columbia, unranked by Rivals.com. Was ranked No. 127 in Georgia by ESPN.

* Had offers from Indiana, Duke, Harvard, Kentucky, NC State, Yale, Wake Forest.

+ Pretty good break on the ball to disrupt a jailbreak screen and stop it for a loss of a yard vs UVa.

+ Tested deep on a post by UVA in the 3Q, covered it pretty well. In off-zone, the WR had a step initially, but Brown with good make-up speed and body control at the end.

* Started 10 games last year and 8 as a freshman in 2015. Missed 2016 with an injury.

WHAT ABOUT THE DTs?

* Can they withstand a good double-team block?

They don’t have anyone as stubborn as Nate Hoff was last year. Michigan State spent most of the afternoon trying to move Hoff off the line of scrimmage and never succeeded.

No. 54 is okay against double teams.

No. 91 is quick and athletic, but not good against double-teams.

91 DT JACOB ROBINSON 6-4, 295, Sr., Westfield, Ind.)

* Was a 5.5 three-star recruit, ranked No. 18 in Indiana.

* Pretty good feet when slanting, body lean.

* Not good enough against double teams.

* Quick feet to close in the short area.

He will see a steady dose of double-teams from Jarvis/Reid or Campbell/Beedle or Chewins/Beedle. There could be movement and room through No. 91.


54 NT JA’MEREZ BOWEN (6-4, 311, Sr.,

* Played pretty well vs Ball State.

* Decent as two-gapping stump, but not a line-basher like Renell Wren.

Bowen’s back-up is No. 51, Mike Barwick (6-0, 307. He’s serviceable but he doesn’t pass the eye test. Looks more like a MAC guy.

WHAT ABOUT THE D-ENDS

* They’re okay, but limited. They work hard. No game-breakers out there.

* No. 99 had some tools, but he isn’t a starter.

99 DE ALLEN STALLINGS (6-2, 247, Jr., Oak Park, Ill.)

* Was a 5.3, two-star recruit, with no other offers.

* He is listed as a second-string DE, but I like him. He plays bigger than his size.

* Pretty quick take-off, can bend low with it. Good shoulder dip to penetrate for key TFL in the last two minutes vs UVa.

+ Good inside slant and then a late change of direction to finish on a TFL to stymie Ball State’s opening drive.


35 DE NILE SYKES (6-2, 252, Sr.)

* Strong side DE. He starts ahead of 99.

* Pretty good take off, pretty good slight head-and-shoulder fake, not sure he can bend the corner. Pretty good heat during UVa’s Hail Mary.

* No. 69, DE Gavin Everett (6-3, 262, Jr., Center Grove, Ind.), was out with an injury last week. He's a former walk-on.

* Had a TFL early in the UVA game on a jet sweep. Good job beating the TE and setting the edge vs the fly sweep.
* Seemed limited late in the UVa game but might have been playing hurt because he missed the following week.
* Overall, he's limited.

* Off the bench, true freshman No. 6 James Head is interesting.

(6 James Head 6-5, 248, Fr., Miami, Fla.)

* Different type of athlete, is just beginning at IU.

* Defensive end but he will stand up and play inside linebacker on third down, good straight line speed, not sure how agile he is.

* Was a three-star 5.7 recruit ranked No. 33 strongside DE in the country.

* Also had offers from Michigan State, Baylor, Mississippi State, Nebraska, Oregon, Tennessee, South Carolina. Was a summer commitment.

WHAT ABOUT THE LINEBACKERS?

No. 43 as one of the inside linebackers has average speed and athleticism.

43 plays next to Reakwon Jones.

One is good, one is limited. That’s the way Indiana is at a lot of position groups on defense.

43 ILB DAMEONN WILLIS (6-1, 225, Sr., Cleveland)

* 5.6 three star recruit, ranked No. 54 in Ohio.

* Willis considered retiring after last season. According to Allen, Willis was “beat up” after last season, but then had some time away from the field and decided to come back.

* I hate to say he has average speed and athleticism, considering that Coach Allen said the kid was beat up last year. I give him credit for battling through, but the truth is he just a little bit slow to the edge. On a QB spy play against Virginia, he took the wrong angle, got banana peeled, allowed the QB to turn the corner on a scramble.

* But this kid is experienced and smart, and give Indiana some straight-line aggressiveness between the tackles. He had seven stops vs Michigan State last year.

**

As for special teams, Indiana had a field goal and a point-after blocked against Virginia, which turned what should have been a 24-7 lead into a 20-9 game, and put IU in severe trouble in the final minutes.

But it looked like they figured out their protections last week.

**

WHAT ABOUT THE PASS RUSH?

* The defensive ends are okay, but not great. I don’t think they are a down-in, down-out nuisance.

On third down, IU will bring six players to the line of scrimmage and not attempt to conceal that they are blitzing.

Crawford at safety is a pretty good finisher as a blitzer, but you can’t play that card too often

WHAT'S IT SPELL?

Overall, we should expect Indiana to stack the box again with nine, and I think Michigan State will have the balance to attack and move the ball better than last year. They had better, because Indiana will be charged up and if they are holding Michigan State under 10 points for three quarters, that momentum will carry over to Indiana’s offense, and the Spartans could get in trouble.

But I think that’s a slightly less-likely scenario. I think MSU’s offense has the balance and the quarterbacking to put drives together better than last year. And when Michigan State gets in the red zone, they had darn well do better than 25 percent touchdowns, or else this will be a third-straight nail-biting game.



I think Indiana’s mediocrity vs double-teams inside, especially when they go to the second string, SHOULD enable Michigan State to get an inside run game going. And if the safeties come down early to stuff it, then Michigan State needs to test IU deep more frequently than we’ve seen from Michigan State in the first two weeks.



Mark Dantonio said during his radio show that they need to do more to make sure Felton Davis is involved and getting more touches. If Indiana is selling out to stop the run, Michigan State needs to find a way to make them pay via Davis.

THE MICRO

Indiana Personnel

* I usually look for weaknesses, and/or blast players that I don't think are as good as their hype. But I can't find weaknesses or much to criticize with Indiana's personnel on offense. They have a quality offensive line, a pair of big WRs, some eager tight ends, and a good freshman tailback.

They had a few too many dropped passes vs Virginia and Ball State. I don't know if that's going to be a weekly problem.

They might lack home-run athleticism at WR and RB, but a couple of little young guys are sprinkling in some "plus" quickness, as is their punt return burner.

I need to see DeBord call this game this week, and I'll hold off until then, but right now my biggest question of the offense is the way Indiana will find a decent play that gains five yards and they will run it into the ground.

They are operating their uptempo offense faster than last year, and they try to wear you down with the run, with rapid snaps. They don't do this the entire game, but they will send a flurry of those inside run plays at you. It's going to be intriguing to see if this works against MSU (I doubt that it will) and then it will be intriging to see how long they stick with it.

This is what you need to know: The base of what they've done on offense through three games revolves around establishing the inside zone run. I assume they will remain that way for this game.

OFFENSE:

QB PEYTON RAMSEY (6-2, 210, Soph., Cincinnati)

“He’s different this year,” said BTN analyst J Leman. “He doesn’t look to run first.”

* Last year he played in nine games and started four. Last year he threw for 1,252 yards and ran for 226, with 10 TDs and five INTs, plus two rushing TDs.

* Had a string of nine straight completions against FIU.

* Completed 11 of his first 13 passes in a heavy rain storm vs UVa.

* When he steps up in the pocket, he doesn’t take his eyes off of receivers, like he often did last year. He makes good use of his quick feet.

* Beat out Richard Lagow for the starting job last year. (Lagow was the starting QB for IU when they beat Michigan State in 2016).

* Two-time Greater Cincinnati Catholic League Player of the Year.

* Was ranked No. 50 in Ohio by ESPN.

+ Many of his passes are short, high-percentage, unspectacular throws. But he had a real nice post to big WR Donavan Hale (6-4, 229, Jr.) at FIU for a touchdown.

+ 30-yard TD on a nice-touch deep shot from the left hash to the right sideline to Westbrook late in the 1H vs UVa.

* He has good running ability, and they use it on speed options and zone read keepers four or five times a game. They don’t wear him out with it. They just sprinkle it in, kind of like Michigan State does with Lewerke.

ALERT: They are prone to use the QB keeper more often in the red zone.

* He will check down and throw the drag or short crosser, short of first down yardage, on third-and-long.

MISTAKES

* Big mistake vs UVa on first play after UVA cut the lead to 20-16: UVA came with a blitz. From his own 20, he was flushed to his right and made a bad decision in throwing late, across his body back toward the middle for a bad INT. If UVa had cashed in, that could have been the turning point error in a loss.

He didn’t seem to learn from that mistake. He made an identical decision a week later while being flushed to his right against Ball State. That one fell incomplete, but it wasn’t pretty. And it wasn’t the norm for him. He will probably grow out of those type of mistakes, or at least cut back on them. But he’s not there yet.

BE AWARE OF BACK-UP QB:

QB Michael Penix (6-3, 206, Fr., Tampa, Fla.)

* Highly-touted freshman. Was a four-star recruit ranked No. 55 in Florida by Indiana. Also took official visits to Florida State and South Florida. Had offers from Tennessee, Oregon and Rutgers.

* Lefty with a very strong arm. Three-quarters delivery.

* Hillsborough County (Fla.) offensive player of the year last year.

* Was 8 of 10 vs FIU in week one. Did not play vs UVa.

* Played the opening drive of the 2H vs Ball State.

* When you see his arm potential you realize why Indiana wants to get him on the field and keep him involved. You don’t want this guy to transfer if you are IU.

* He’s kind of a watered down Lamar Jackson style guy. Not the type of guy I would expect Indiana to get. But Tom Allen spent a year or two down in Florida at the U of South Florida.

RBs & RUN GAME

* They love the inside zone. They’ll do it at uptempo, and then way uptempo.

They will occasionally pull a guard for a trap, but I haven’t seen a wide variety of ways for them to go about their run game. Penn State was the same way last year and it made it easier to contain Saquan Barkley, which many teams managed to do.

Until further notice, I would state that Indiana does a few things well in its run game, but until and unless they do MORE things well in their run game, then quality run defenses like Michigan State SHOULD be able to contain them.

If Michigan State shuts down Indiana’s ground game, don’t underrate the accomplishment. It will take a good effort to shut down their run. I think Michigan State will do it. But this is a quality, veteran, slick Indiana offensive line.

* Everything is out of the shot gun with Indiana, occasionally the pistol.

* They will use RPOs frequently, especially in the red zone.

21 RB STEVIE SCOTT, FR (6-2, 236, Syracuse, NY)

* A big September story as an impact true freshman RB, one of the top impact true freshmen of the season so far in the Big Ten.

* Was a three-star recruit, ranked No. 11 in New York by Rivals.com.

* Was originally a Rutgers commit, but flipped to Indiana near signing day.

* Same hometown as Mike Hart, IU’s running backs coach.

* Played only three games as a high school senior.

* 31 rushes for 204 yards rushing vs Virginia.

* 18 rushes for 114 yards vs Ball State.

* 70 yards vs FIU

+ Runs with a good combination of vision, cutting ability and some power. Has good, not great, speed.

+ Decent job scooting to daylight on 40-yard TD run vs UVa on an inside zone.

- Fumbled inside the 5-yard line last week after receiving a swing pass out of the backfield.

* Varied it a little bit last week with a good lead trap for 19 yards in the 2Q, but mainly stuck to inside zone plays. The less varied a running attack is, and the more a running attack relies on inside zone, the better chance Michigan State has to stop them cold.

* Morgan Ellison, last year’s leading rusher (704 yards), was suspended indefinitely in late August. The coach said this week there is no update on when he will return.

* Also Be Aware Of:

* 2 Reese Taylor (5-11, 184, Fr., Indianapolis)

* Was Mr. Football in Indiana last year as a QB at Indianapolis Ben Davis.

* They are kind of turning him into a Mill Coleman type of WR.

* Taylor began fall camp at CB. But when Indiana’s back-up QB (a grad transfer from the University of Arizona) left IU after failing to win the starting QB job, coaches moved Taylor from CB to QB.

* He saw the field a little bit against Ball State as a slash WR.

* Mike DeBord says he’s a speed guy who needs to become a regular part of the offense.

* He was a three-star athlete, ranked No. 11 in Indiana by Rivals.com.

OFFENSIVE LINE

* This was a good o-line last year, and they’re all back and better now. This is a legitimately fine offensive line.

They won’t quite maul you like a Wisconsin o-line or a vintage Iowa o-line. They are somewhere between a good Northwestern o-line that will pick and dart at you, and the Glen Mason zone-blocking, holding o-lines.

* IU has eight offensive linemen with starting experience, including a grad transfer from Miami (Fla.) who didn’t crack the starting lineup.

* IU has allowed only one sack all year.

* Pretty quick offensive line. Quick and correct with outside zones.

* On fourth-and-one last week, they ran inside zone behind the LT/LG double team of Cronk and Martin. Not bad at all. Gained it easily.

* Is one particular o-lineman in this group someone to be aware of? They all look pretty good to me. I’ve seen all of them make nice plays. I don’t know what the NFL scouts say, but I had Jason Spriggs as an NFL Draft guy on Spartan Plus two or three years before it happened.

I haven’t watched left tackle Coy Cronk on ALL of his pass sets, but I’ve watched him a few times and he looks like a prospect to me. I don’t know for sure that he is as athletic as Spriggs was, but there are some good players up front. It’ll be a fine tussle between these guys and MSU’s d-line.

The personnel:

LT 54 COY CRONK (6-5, 309, Jr., Lafayette, Ind.)

* Was a 5.6 three-star recruit, No. 13 in the state. Also visited Iowa State.

* 28 career starts.

* Moves well in pass pro. His first step in his kick set is strangely long. I don't know if that's good or bad, but otherwise he looks like an NFL o-tackle to me.

LG 76 WES MARTIN (6-3, 316, Sr., West Milton, Ohio).

* Was a 5.4 two-star recruit. Was unranked in Ohio by the major outlets.

* 34 career starts

* HM All-Big Ten last year.

* Had the most pass blocking snaps without allowing a sack (569) of any offensive guard last year.

* Team captain, Academic All-Big Ten

* Strongest player on the team with a 525 bench.

C 68 HUNTER LITTLEJOHN (6-3, 304, Jr., Powell, Ohio)

* 5.5 three-star recruits, No. 60 in Ohio. Summer commitment had offers from Duke, Illinois, Minnesota, Purdue and others.

* 15 career starts.

* Solid, solid, solid.

+ Pretty good cutoff block on inside zone 40 yard TD run vs UVa.

(Nick Linder, Miami (Fla.) grad transfer started 26 games for the Canes but didn’t beat out Littlejohn for the job).

RG 72 SIMON STEPANIAK (6-4, 311, Hamilton, Ohio)

* 5.5 three-star recruit, ranked No. 44 in Ohio.

* May commitment had offers from Illinois, Kentucky, Louisville, Minnesota, Penn State and others.

* 11 career starts.

+ Pretty good shoulder club to knock a DT to the side during Smith’s 40 yard TD run vs UVa.

62 RT BRANDON KNIGHT (6-5, 307, Sr., Noblesville, Ind.)

* 5.7 three-star recruit, ranked No. 7 in Indiana.

* June commitment with offers from Purdue, Illinois, Maryland Miami, Minnesota, NC State, Va Tech and others.

* 17 career starts.

* Gets a little more hype than the others on this line, but I think the left tackle is the bell cow. The guards are good, the center is good. They’re all good, and they work well together.

* Got away with a hold on an outside zone for gain of 11 in 1Q vs UVa.

RECEIVERS: Indiana no longer has Simmie Cobbs, but they have a nice assortment led by two guys with good size in Westbrook (6-3) and Hale (6-4). Hale is breaking through this season after waiting his turn. And No. 25 Timian is a venerable, reliable possession guy.

25 WR LUKE TIMIAN (6-0, 195, Sr., Southlake, Texas)

* Possession WR with more than 100 career catches.

* He had 68 catches last year, ranking third in the Big Ten, for 589 yards (13th in the Big Ten).

* Good on crossing routes. Slippery and sneaky.

* Was a 5.4 two-star, originally signed with Oklahoma State. Didn’t make anyone’s Top 100 in Texas.

* He also visited Minnesota.

6 WR DONAVAN HALE (6-4, 229, Jr., Largo, Fla.)

* Emerging as a breakthrough player in 2018.

* Was a 5.4 two-star recruit. He also visited Syracuse. He had offers from Louisville, Minnesota, South Florida and Wisconsin.

* Four catches, 60 yards, 2 TDs vs Florida International.

* Four catches for 56 yards vs Virginia.

* Didn’t record a catch last week vs Ball State.

+ Moved chains on third-and-five in 1H vs UVA as No. 2 WR curl vs zone at the sticks.

+ Fade stop 9-yard TD in 1q vs UVA. Looked pretty good posting up, bodying up, getting up.

+ Deep post late in the 1H vs UVa, tracked the ball, bodied up the CB, finished the play on a pass that initially looked like Ramsey had lofted too high in the air. Gain of about 30.

* Last year was lost to injury in game three. He had five catches for 67 yards against Ohio State last year.

15 NICK WESTBROOK (6-3, 215, Jr., Lake Mary, Fla.)

* Was a 5.6 three-star recruit. Also had offers from Boston College, Kentucky, Georgia Tech, Cal, Virginia and mid-majors.

* Has nine catches on the year, averaging 28 yards receiving per game. Has 1 TD.

* Last year, blew out his knee on the first play of the season last year.

+ TD, about 30 yards, on a go route vs UVa late in the 1H.

- Dropped a comeback route early in the Ball State game.

+ Nice square-in for about 20 yards on IU’s opening drive last week. Ramsey had a clean pocket to throw from.

+ Nice catch on a post vs cover-three last week.

3 WR Ty Fryfogle (6-2, 212, Soph., Lucedale, Miss.)

* 5.3 three-star recruit and committed just before signing day. Also had offers from Ole Miss and Idaho but took no other official visits.

+ Went high for a 12 yard out route on a third down conversion vs UVa.

+ Caught a back shoulder fade for 18 vs UVa.

- Dropped a pass on a 15 yard out late in the 3Q vs UVA after taking a pretty good hit.

22 WR Whop Philyor (5-11, 180, Soph., Tampa, Fla.)

* 5.4 two-star recruit.

* Visited in mid-January and committed a week later. Also had offers from Arizona, ISU, Louisville, Maryland, NC State, Va Tech and others, but took no other official visits for some reason.

* They threw a WR bubble to him in the red zone.

* Fast on the jet sweep.

* Guys like No. 22 (Philyor) and No. 2 (Reese Taylor) don’t play a lot but they are young, little and fast. If No. 2 or 22 are on the field, chances are that something is special on this play to get them the ball, maybe on a reverse. I don’t think they trust those guys to block and catch the back-shoulder fades which DeBord seems to prefer. But they’re trying to find roles for them. Taylor can throw it.

TIGHT ENDS

* Indiana is starting to throw to the tight ends with regularity. DeBord was a big tight ends guy at Michigan, with the high point being Jerame Tuman and the 1997 team. Tight ends on shallow crosses and drags and sit-downs are becoming increasingly attractive choices for QB Ramsey.

Indiana’s tight ends are young, but they’re making plays. They’re going to have a very good slew of TEs to go with their young QBs for years to come.

86 TE PEYTON HENDERSHOT (6-2, 245, R-Fr., North Salem, Ind.)

* A 5.4 two-star recruit was a summer commitment. Had offers from Syracuse, Wake, Cincinnati and MAC schools.

* Is a better blocker than his size indicates.

* Gained 4 on a drag route on third-and-six vs UVa.

* Good mobility as a blocker, good job on the split zone as a wham blocker or turning upfield to find the edge LB.

* Dropped pass on short out route while getting hit in 1Q vs UVa.

89 Matt Bjorson (6-3, 237, Fr., Hinsdale, Ill.)

* 5.5 three-star recruit, ranked No. 27 in Illinois.

* June commitment also had offers from Kentucky, Colorado State and MAC schools.

* Had three receptions in the first half last week.

* True frosh emerging in the playing group.

* Looked sure-handed over the middle last week.

Ron Burton expects Michigan State's non-conference loss to galvanize the team moving forward. He also expects a challenge from Indiana.

https://michiganstate.rivals.com/news/galvanized-for-big-ten-play-

I have to get going to the airport. I don't have time to dress this up with photos.

We might have video later.

PRE-SNAP READ: MSU vs ASU

By Jim Comparoni


TEMPE, Ariz. - If you’re a Michigan State supporter, it’s probably a good thing that so many Spartan observers, writers and fans are concerned about this road game at Arizona State, and that many are picking against Michigan State, or at least forecasting major problems.

Those cautions are well-founded. The distant past shows that Big Ten teams have had a miserable time at ASU since the mid-1960s, going 0-9 at ASU, including MSU’s loss in 1986 when the Spartans were a Top 20 team.

The recent past (as in last weekend) shows that Michigan State struggled in its opener against Utah State while ASU demolished Texas San Antonio, 49-7.

Michigan State had trouble with Utah State’s tempo and ball-control offense. Arizona State CAN run up-tempo, and WILL run at least some up-tempo offense, but they won’t be as fast or continual as Utah State. However, problems are problems and Michigan State has plenty of reasons for discomfort in this game, including the heat, the late game time, the possibility of facing an uptempo attack, and facing 6-foot-4 WR N’Keal Harry, whom many believe is the top WR in the nation and will become a first-round NFL Draft pick in the spring.

Arizona State sacked the UTSA QB nine times last week. Last week, Michigan State had problems in pass protection, especially in the first half.

All of these things match up negatively for Michigan State … IF the Spartans don’t begin to show vast improvement over last week, and IF the Spartans’ measures to deal with the heat and late game time don’t work.

The caution is understandable. But the fact that fans, media and observers are aware of the traps, and many are picking against Michigan State, will help the Spartans. In listening to some conversations at the football building on Tuesday, I sensed some chip on MSU’s shoulder. They like it that way. And it’s back. Will it help them play better on Saturday, well-enough to win? I can’t guarantee that. But I think MSU’s mindset, after a close call last week and after getting an eyeful of ASU film this week, is in its proper place.

BTN’s Gerry DiNardo reported yesterday that he had spoken with Mark Dantonio this week. Dantonio told him that temperatures reached 140 degrees on the Field Turf synthetic practice surface at Michigan State. Dantonio said temperatures were in the mid-90s on the grass portion of the practice field. Temps were hot last week too. I don’t know if this will help Michigan State prepare for the ASU heat, but I suspect it can’t hurt.

Dantonio told DiNardo that every player had been fitted for compression pants for the flight to ASU, which supposedly helps prevent dehydration which can set in during a long flight.

Dantonio told DiNardo that he will hold a team meeting tonight after they arrive in Phoenix. The meeting will be held a little later than normal in the evening, and a mid-night sack will be conducted literally at midnight, and the coaches will keep the players busy and up later at night than normal, and let them sleep in.

These are all abnormal measures for a road trip. But extreme conditions call for extreme measures.

Is it wise to take these measures, or is ASU already in MSU’s head?

Probably a little bit of both. But the preparations reflect genuine concern on Dantonio’s behalf, in terms of dealing with uncommon, uncomfortable dynamics surrounding this game - dynamics that undoubtedly contributed to the Big Ten’s 0-9 record at ASU.

**

By now, you’re aware of the challenges and traps that this game offers. I think Michigan State has been snapped to a healthy state of reality. Dantonio usually does a good job with these “business trip” type of games.

If Michigan State wins, then a week off will be nice prior to the next business trip, another difficult one at Indiana, then the resumption of the home schedule against CMU.

If all goes well, the ebbs and flows of this schedule - the early test vs Utah State, this uncommonly difficult game at ASU, then a bye week, then the Big Ten opener on the road, then a presumptive step down vs Central Michigan COULD make for a great, well-rounded September for the Spartans - if things begin well this weekend. It could be a September that effectively prepares Michigan State for the challenges of October.

Right now, scheduling this game at ASU seems like a negative risk-reward. Not a good idea. You’re playing a pretty good team that did in fact go to a bowl game last year and beat No. 5 Washington in Tempe. Might as well play them with kickoff temps in the high 90s. Might as well schedule the game so that the fourth quarter begins after 1 a.m., with the game likely being decided around 2 a.m.

Why not schedule a challenging opponent in uncommonly uncomfortable conditions? The risk of playing this game might not give you enough commensurate reward if you happen to win. If you beat ASU, yawn, you won’t get much credit - maybe not as much as you deserve.

But getting lack of credit might continue to feed the Dantonio chip. Which might be best for the long-term.

Know this: If Michigan State wins this game, it might become the best non-conference win by a Big Ten team of the regular season. It might be recognized that way. But, under the hood, that might in fact become the case.

If Michigan State wins, the mettle it unearths in itself will serve the Spartans well for weeks to come, maybe for the entire season. So that’ll be the reward, internally, perhaps subconsciously, IF the Spartans win.

Is it worth the risk at this time?

Well heck, you need to play at least one challenging opponent each preseason. Facing Notre Dame the past two years, or Oregon the previous two years, were obviously healthy risk-reward propositions. Michigan State went 2-2 in those games, and gained national respect for playing those games home-and-home.

I’m not sure Michigan State received enough off-season respect for scheduling this game, although most of the pundits and commentators that I’m hearing this week are suddenly ramping up the respect for ASU, and deservedly so.

FINAL ANALYSIS FIRST

As for this game against ASU, I’m sure many of you have seen the stats and highlights from last week’s ASU victory over UTSA, and the highlight-reel plays that WR Harry put forth.

He’s a monster. At 6-foot-4, the thing that strikes me is how difficult he is to tackle. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a WR who requires gang tackling the way this guy does. I’m trying to think of any WR I’ve seen at the college level that was this difficult to tackle. Randy Moss was FAAAAST and physical, making him difficult to tackle for other reasons. Al Toon was huge for his era. Harry is compared to Larry Fitzgerald. I didn’t see Calvin Johnson play much at Georgia Tech. My frame of reference on this subject isn’t as vast as I’d like it to be. Yet I’m not sure “difficult to tackle” is often a checkbox when evaluating WRs. But this guy has that component.

Harry is a monster, the QB is pretty good, they have other WRs, they have a good nose guard, a pretty good outside linebacker and a good cornerback.

HOWEVER, when looking at Arizona State, they are NOT what I would call a well-rounded team at this point.

They have the quality nose tackle (No. 95, Renell Wren, 6-6, 297), but the guys playing next to him are decent-to-suspect.

The outside linebacker (No. 39 Malik Lawal, 6-1, 228, Jr.) is a good pass rusher, although he doesn’t blitz a whole lot. And two of their other LBs are freshmen and play like freshmen.

On the o-line, their left tackle is a grad transfer from Stanford. He is an excellent, physical run blocker. Their center has quickness to snap, pull, get to the edge and cut block, although they don’t run that play a lot. But their right guard has too many turnstile moments; he’s not sturdy.

They have a smattering of excellent talent as a team, but don’t appear to be a well-rounded team.

Is Michigan State balanced and diversified enough to take advantage of weaknesses? They’ll need to be. The answer to that question will determine whether you think Michigan State will have a successful weekend.

Last week, I thought Michigan State would churn out more than 240 yards rushing. I was off on that. Utah State was quicker on defense than I anticipated, and good at getting off of blocks and rallying numbers to the ball, and tackling.

ASU was good last weekend. And if Michigan State had played ASU in Tempe last weekend, I think we all agree that Michigan State likely would have lost, perhaps in convincing fashion.

Now, can we expect major improvement from Michigan State between week one and week two? That’s often the mode for quality programs, and it’s certainly been the mode for many Dantonio teams at Michigan State. The Spartans will NEED that dynamic to be in place for this game.

Can ASU deal with the success of a 49-7 opening-night victory? They have a new head coach. Herm Edwards, the famous former NFL coach who stunned the football world by taking this job, has a CEO approach to coaching. He outsources most of the macro coaching and all of the micro coaching to his coordinators. The athletic director who hired Edwards, a long-time friend and former business partner, sought to retain the previous head coach’s coordinators while hiring Edwards. Both coordinators were in place for Edwards when he took the job, although the o-coordinator was subsequently hired as head coach at Louisiana-Lafayette.

My point is that Edwards is a big-picture, hard-nosed CEO type. This is an ASU program that has had trouble dealing with success over the years. But I suspect he will get the team re-grounded for week two.

**

Usually, I forecast games based on what we know about each team, and I stay away from hunches.

This early in the season, the body of work for each team is too slim. We haven’t yet seen Michigan State play well. We haven’t seen ASU tested by a strong opponent. Picking Michigan State would be based on a hunch that they would get their crap together in time for this west coast business trip. Picking Michigan State requires the idea that you have enough faith in the program, the head coach, the player leadership as well as whatever we thought about the individual talent coming into the game.

This early in the season, if you pick Michigan State, you’re picking based on a hunch, and the reputation of the program. I am leaning toward going along with that hunch. I am expecting Michigan State to give up yards through the air and have plenty of problems in this game, but I will be expecting Michigan State to do just enough, after 1 a.m., to eke out this victory. I think there are match-ups for Michigan State to exploit. And I think Michigan State has the QB to pick apart ASU’s defense if ASU plays as much loose zone this week as they did last week. But the Pre-Snap Read isn’t about MY pick. It’s about me providing research and information to allow the reader to come up with his or her own forecast.

As for my forecasts, and misreading early-season bodies of work, well at this time last year I was watching WMU roll up something close to 300 yards rushing against what appeared to be a lethargic, miserable, disinterested USC defense. I thought USC was dog crap. A week later USC was playing Stanford. I guaranteed that Bryce Love and Stanford would rush for five miles against USC. But USC shored up their problems and beat Stanford convincingly. That was the worst prediction of my life.

If you watched Michigan State last week, you might think they are dog crap. So we go with hunches and long-term body of work at this time of year, perhaps as much as a one-week body of evidence.

THE QUESTIONS & CONCERNS

ASU’s problems and issues for Michigan State include:

* WR Harry. And other WRs. How good are they, how can Michigan State cope?

* The ASU QB. How good is he? Can Michigan State cope?

* The ASU pass rush. Nine sacks last week? Can MSU’s pass protection cope?

* The ASU front seven. Some of their guys up front are young, some aren’t physical. Can they hold up vs Michigan State? Is Michigan State ready to get its ground power tools oiled up?

* ASU’s pass defense. They have a good cornerback (No. 24). But they play a lot of off coverage. They had a lot of airy coverages last week vs UTSA. Was that a matter of staying vanilla and not wanting to show Michigan State its hand. Or will Michigan State see airy zones and off-coverages? If so, can Lewerke carve them up?

Let’s start with the last question first.

MSU PASS OFFENSE vs ASU PASS DEFENSE

I think this is where Michigan State MUST have a big day, and I think Michigan State is equipped to do so. I think Brian Lewerke will be dialed into film study at a plus level for his return to his home state. He has good, veteran WRs who run good tight routes, which is needed against an ASU secondary that will provide room and try to break on the route and the ball.

Last week, ASU played a lot of loose zone coverages. UTSA’s quarterback was terrible. I’m watching it and I’m thinking Lewerke can carve this up.

However, that probably wasn’t a true indication of how they will play Michigan State.

How will they play Michigan State? I went back and watched San Diego State vs Stanford from last year. ASU’s new d-coordinator (Danny Gonzales) was DC at San Diego State last year.

San Diego State beat Stanford 20-17 last year.

San Diego State’s defense was successful on the vast majority of the downs, aside from allowing two or three long runs to Stanford’s great tailback Bryce Love (the first two came on outside zone “stretch” plays, with terrific WR blocking).

MSU’s WR blocking last week was not good. Rather than assuming that’s their m.o. for the year, I suspect the coaches railed them about it and I would expect improvement in WR blocking this week.

But that’s another big question. Did ASU hide its true defensive intentions last week by playing so much loose, airy zone against UTSA? (ASU tightened things up and blitzed a lot on third downs. But their mode of operation on first and second down was a loose zone).

Gonzales probably feels SDSU should have held Stanford under 10 points last year. They bottled up the Stanford run game 80 percent of the time, but allowed two or three home runs to get out. Meanwhile, they held Stanford QB Keller Chryst to just 9 of 20 passing for 72 yards, with 2 INTs and a QB rating of 4.2. Yes, 4.2.

Stanford had only 10 first downs in that game.

In the first quarter, Stanford had a total of 10 plays for four yards.

First quarter time of possession: SDSU 13:36, Stanford 2:36.

Why do we care?

Well, Gonzales had to feel good about the way his defense bottled up Stanford’s two-back power game, and how they kept a lid on the Stanford pass game.

I’m guessing Gonzales will employ a similar strategy vs Michigan State, or at least have a similar strategy available as a Plan B.

Dantonio said this week that they had been watching SDSU defensive film from last year. I’m sure they watched the Stanford-SDSU game, and Gonzales gave them an eyeful.

WHAT DID SDSU DO?

SDSU didn’t do anything revolutionary or spectacular against Stanford. They played a 3-4 front that sometimes morphed into a 3-5 with three deep DBs.

ASU will run a 3-3-5 defense, which sounds too bent to stop the pass, without enough beef up front. And that’s true. They were that way last week against a Texas San Antonio team that tries to be run-oriented, ball-possession type of team. But ASU was able to stay vanilla on defense, play air, off-zone, and still stop the run because, well, UTSA was bad.

San Diego State vs Stanford last year showed a 3-5 in the box the first time Stanford showed an I formation, with three deep DBs playing OFF coverage.

8-man fronts aren’t new to college football. But there are two basic ways to play them. You can back them up with tight, press, man-to-man coverage, like Michigan has done when Michigan was good.

Or you can play soft in the secondary as a safety net. This is what SDSU did last year, and they kept a lid on Stanford.

I didn’t rewatch that game enough to detect whether QB Chryst for Stanford sucked. I’d have to watch it again. I did think the route combinations were stale, on some of the times that I tried to look for them, after I got an idea of how the game was going. I saw a lot of curls, stationary stuff. Michigan State doesn’t get enough credit for its route combination concepts and the moving parts within its passing game.

I think Michigan State will have good routes combinations for ASU’s loose coverages, with WRs who run crisp routes, a QB who reads well and delivers on time and with accuracy.

Will the heat and late start have an impact on any of these components? I don’t know.

The Athletic ran an article this week in which a former Wisconsin player said that when the Badgers played at ASU in 2013 he had never seen so many of his teammates YAWNING during a game as was the case that night when Top 20 Wisconsin lost at ASU.

Michigan State coaches and players are saying all the right things. I heard one Michigan State staff member shrug it off on Tuesday, welcoming the challenge, feeling that those teams that lost at ASU took place years ago and Michigan State was ready to be the first to win out there. DBs coach Paul Haynes told us on Tuesday that he had experienced it as a player and coach; he said when the game starts, players play and they “don’t know what time it is.”

That might be true, about not knowing what time it is, but all it takes is for 10 or 20 players to not quite feel 100 percent sharp, due to heat or time change, and suddenly it’s hard for your team to play at a B-plus level. And that might be all the edge needed to have an off night.

Meanwhile, it’s going to be black-out black uniforms for ASU players and fans. Their atmosphere last weekend was pretty good.

I went back and watched ASU’s stunning 13-7 upset of No. 5-ranked Washington last year. Washington was 6-0 going into the game. ASU was 3-3.

ASU went with the blackout uniforms for that game. The stadium was loud and rabid. They played hard and fired up. You never would have known that ASU was a 2-3 team, with a coaching staff on the hot seat.

As for that game, it seemed like every time I saw an ASU defensive player make a big play, it was done by a player who is no longer on the team. Three guys for ASU’s defense last year kept popping up on that game film; two became NFL free agents and one was a sixth-round draft pick. Those three guys were good. Those three guys are gone. But there is some talent coming back on defense.

**

The bottom line: I think ASU will play those soft coverages vs the widest wide outs (they will press the slot guy more frequently). And I think Michigan State will hit them with slants and comebacks along the sideline and get into a rhythm.

Gonzales likes to blitz on third down. Sometimes with tight coverage, sometimes with off/cover-three. Again, I think Michigan State will have something for those coverages. Michigan State will need to pass protect and CATCH THE BALL. I think Lewerke will deliver.

As far as pass protection goes, I don’t know if Cole Chewins will play. I think Michigan State should be well enough in pass pro for Lewerke to do enough of his thing.

ASU piled up nine sacks last week. But in watching the game, most of them came during garbage time, many of them by second-stringers after UTSA had quit.

ASU has some decent pass rushers. Former Michigan State commitment Darius Slade, who flipped from Michigan State to Ohio State on signing day a few years ago and then transferred to ASU, had two sacks. He played mostly on third down. He didn’t play many snaps. But he was very impressive in his two sacks. I wonder if is playing time will increase. It should. I think he is their best pure pass rusher. But if he continues to only play on third down, I think Michigan State would like that.

At 6-4, 255, Slade is an impressive looking specimen. I didn’t get a chance to watch his run defense. ASU’s 3-3 defensive front asks defensive ends to play as five techniques, which is more of a defensive tackle type of assignment. Maybe Slade isn’t cut out for that type of work. I think he is more of a 4-3 defensive end than a 3-3 defensive end. (Meanwhile, someone like Will Gholston played in MSU’s 4-3 as an edge d-end, but he would have been better-suited to play a five tech in a 30 front like Alabama. And that’s what Gholston has been doing in the NFL, playing five tech in a 30).

Slade was loud last week, in short bursts. Maybe he’ll play more this week. I don’t know. The body of work is slim. We have to guess. But he is a player, athletic, good power when coming forward, good ability to start/stop and change directions, as he showed on his second sack.

Slade would look very very good on MSU’s roster right now. I want to see more of him this weekend and see if he can defend the run, but my sense right now is that he would be a difference-maker for Michigan State.

BACKGROUND INFO & RELATIVE INFO

I’m not going to go into Herm Edwards. You know his story.

You probalbly know he hadn’t coached in 10 years, hadn’t been around college coaching in 30 years (was DBs coach at San Jose State in 1989). Edwards became interested in coaching young people again after being around the UnderArmour All-American Game a couple of times, and feeling a connection with the young players and a calling to coach a piece of their generation.

As for ASU, they were good last week, but they had some issues, too. Their punt team was flagged three times. ASU was flagged for delay of game prior to the first snap of the game. I’ve never seen that before.

But his sideline demeanor is firm and controlled, and a little bit fun.

* How good was ASU last year? Better than you think.

Their fired their coach. Hiring Edwards created some laughter from pundits last winter when he didn’t seem to have much of a grasp of the recruiting calendar. But no one is laughing now.

ASU went 7-5 in the regular season last year, fired the coach and lost to NC State in the Sun Bowl.

That’s not bad. That’s why their A.D. wanted to keep both coordinators (although both ended up leaving for other jobs).

ASU had wins over Oregon, Washington, Utah, Colorado, Oregon State and Arizona last year.

ASU lost to San Diego State, Texas Tech, Stanford, USC and UCLA in the regular season.

Typical Pac-12 inconsistency. I swear every team in that conference can beat any other team in that conference on any given weekend.

**

As for last week’s opponent, UTSA.

Well, UTSA wasn’t bad in 2017, but they look bad this year.

Last year, UTSA went 6-5 (their game vs Houston was canceled).

UTSA had wins over Baylor, Rice, Marshall, Southern, Texas State and UTEP.

UTSA lost by 2 to Southern Miss, by 3 to North Texas, by 7 to Florida International, by 5 to UAB and by 14 to Louisiana Tech.

Not good, not bad.

UTSA ranked No. 1 in the nation last year in fewest first downs allowed, No. 2 in pass yards allowed per game, No. 5 in total yards allowed per game and No. 8 in scoring defense. (But they lost their defensive coordinator to Alabama after the season to become the Tide’s co-defensive coordinator and inside linebackers coach).

THE OTHER PREVIOUSLY-MENTIONED QUESTIONS:

* WR Harry. And other WRs. How good are they, how can Michigan State cope?

Harry is the real deal. As stated, you have to gang tackle him.

ASU put Harry in the slot for its first two plays last week. UTSA played soft in the slot, the way Michigan State does. ASU threw right to him. I thought to myself: Michigan State had better change the way it plays the slot, or else this cat is going to catch 15 passes for 700 yards.

UTSA tighted up the slot a little, but not a lot. And I don’t think ASU put Harry in the slot again for the rest of the night.

Again, was ASU hiding their true intentions?

I don’t know.

But if I were ASU, I’d put No. 1 (Harry) in the slot and make Michigan State put a defender close to him (which will soften MSU’s run defense, and reduce the two-deep safety net in the back). Michigan State prefers to have the two-deep safety net to prevent big plays, and they prefer to have outside linebackers thinking run-stop first, and pass defense second.

Michigan State wants to keep three LBs on the field, which means the ‘star’ linebacker is in the slot.

If ASU puts Harry in the slot, then ‘star’ LB Andrew Dowell (or his back-up Antjuan Simmons) is the area defender vs America’s best WR. Good luck with that. Iowa plays that way too, and they do a pretty good job with it. Michigan State seems more inconsistent (or perhaps consistently generous) when facing spread-to-pass teams.

Michigan State stuck with three LBs all last week, and Utah State did 300-plus yards worth of damage and almost won. But Michigan State was pleased that it allowed no plays of more than 28 yards and stopped the run cold.

Michigan State feels it would have won going away if not for two penalties at the 1-yard and the pick-six. So Michigan State felt their defense was on schedule to win 45—24 if the offense hadn’t choked.

**

Will ASU put Harry in the slot more than last weekend? Maybe.

Will Michigan State stick with three LBs throughout the game and play the slot soft? Maybe. Maybe not.

Michigan State still has that 3-4 defense in its hopper. They used it vs Washington State. ASU isn’t as pass happy as WSU.

Utah State wasn’t supposed to be as pass happy as WSU, but they had to be that way because they couldn’t run the ball.

Maybe Michigan State has that 3-4 defense and didn’t want to show it last week. Maybe we’ll see it this weekend.

Other options would include putting MSU’s biggest, best CB, Justin Layne, on Harry, all over the field. Michigan State has done that OCCASIONALLY in the past. Like maybe once every two or three years. Perhaps this is a situation in which Michigan State might look to do that; although Michigan State often doesn’t go to that option until the second half, after some damage is done.

If Michigan State does that, will Layne be successful against Harry? I don’t know. Layne is good, but Harry is very good. That would be an interesting match-up in man-to-man if Layne had some safety help and had a great idea of where his help was at all times. That latter point being significant, which requires great same-pageness in the defensive backfield versus whatever route combinations they might see, including things they haven’t seen on film. The ability to have that same-pageness against surprise combinations is what separates good defensive backfields from the type of No Fly Zone secondary we saw in 2013. Brain work and team cooperation is often the next-level difference-maker, not extreme athleticism.

As for Harry, one of the most frequent and interesting formations ASU used last week was one in which they put Harry by himself to one side of the formation, while they put three WRs to the other side of the formation.

You have to make a choice on defense. Do you skew a safety over to the three-WR side? If so, then do you skew a safety over to help Harry’s defender, who is on an one-on-one island?

If you do both, and your safeties are spread out that wide, then you’re weak against the run. Michigan State did that against Ohio State a couple of times last year and gave up long, long TD runs up the middle. Remember those? Well, that’s what happens when Michigan State tries to match up and take away the slot WR and help with coverage to the outside.

And that’s why Michigan State usually prefers to stop the run first, and take its chances with the other stuff while playing field position ball.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR:

Look for ASU’s 3 by 1 formation when they put Harry (No. 1) to the 1-WR side. Does Michigan State slide a safety over there to help? Does ASU go after Harry’s single-coverage defender?

Last week, interstingly, when ASU went with this formation, they usually DID NOT throw in Harry’s direction. I don’t know what that was all about. Again, is that a dose of week one vanilla?

More Harry info:

1 WR N’KEAL HARRY (6-4, 215, Chandler, Ariz.)

* He was a five-star recruit, ranked the No. 1 WR in the country by Rivals.com and the No. 18 player overall. He was a November commitment and didn’t officially visit any other schools.

* Is expected to be a first-round NFL Draft pick in the spring. Some regard him as the top WR in the nation.

*Was first team All-Pac 12 last year with 82 catches, 1,142 receiving yards and 42 TDs.

* Nick-name: Secreteriat.

* Has been compared to Larry Fitzgerald by ASU offensive coordinator Rob Likens.

NEXT QUESTION:

* The ASU QB. How good is he? Can Michigan State cope?

5 QB MANNY WILKINS (6-3, 200, Jr., Novato, Calif.)

* 3,270 yards passing last year, fifth in ASU single-season history.

* For his career, he has 32 TDs and 17 INTs.

* Was an Elite 11 finalist. Was a Rivals.com three-star recruit (four star by most others), and was ranked No. 20 pro style QB in the nation and No. 40 overall in California.

* He was a spring commitment and didn’t officially visit anywhere else.

* Was inaccurate on three of his first five passes last week, weak and short when throwing back to Harry on a freelance flush. Missed high and outside on short out to Harry.

* Solid QB, but in my opinion he is NOT AS GOOD as Utah State’s QB. (Or put it this way: I don’t know if he will be as good this weekend as USU’s QB was last weekend. That’s a bold statement because Wilkins has pretty good accolades and USU’s had none. But that’s my read right now based on this year’s body of work).

Wilkins piled up good stats and good completion pct in a conventional spread offense last year, with zone read sewn in.

This year’s offense still deals with a lot of spread concepts, as is the case everywhere in the country these days. But it’s less pure system spread than it was under former coach Todd Graham.

ASU’s new OC, who was ASU’s wide receivers coach last year, says he wants to see more pocket presence out of Wilkins this year. It looks and sounds like they are trying to make him a more well-rounded QB.

This is ASU’s fourth OC in four years. He’s a quality QB, but you have to wonder if starting over each year has curtailed his development.

He’s good, not great. I think he’s a little slow with decisions and delivery. Not bad, but just a tad. His arm strength is okay, not great.

He threw one beautiful touch pass from the left hash to the right sideline, deep shot inside the 5-yard line, for about 40 yards, last week. That was nice. But down-in and down-out, he’s pretty good. I don’t think he is Clayton Thorson good. I said that last week, and ate some of those words. Thorson is MSU’s QB boogie man, to whom all QBs will be compared this year.

My notes on Wilkins from last week:

* not as good as Utah State’s QB. A little deliberate, not as much velocity or immediacy to his throws as what Michigan State saw last week.

* Ran the power read option once in the first quarter but didn’t seem explosive when doing it. He will run read option keepers maybe once or twice a game. He’s okay with it, similar to last week’s opponent.

* Inaccurate INC deep for WR Terrel Chatman late in the 1Q. ASU’s center allowed some pressure. (Chatman is 6-4, 193, Jr.). Chatman had one catch for 11 yards last week. He had one catch all of last year, is probably a talent-on-the-rise guy.

* Threw from hash to the far sideline once in the first half, and the ball was in the air a long time but the coverage was so soft, WR Kyle Williams made the grab for 20 yards anyway.

Williams is ASU’s second-leading WR:

WR 10 KYLE WILLIAMS (5-11, 182, Jr., Murrieta, Calif.)

* Three-star recruit, No. 70 in California.

* Former high school QB, so be aware of trickery.

* 66 catches for 763 yards and 7 TDs last year.

* Had 7 catches for 121 yards last year vs USC.

* Scored TDs in each of the last three games last year.

* He had one catch last week for 21 yards.

* QB Wilkins beat out Alabama transfer Blake Barnett for the job last year, and Barnett transferred to South Florida.

* Runs well enough. Good roll out keeper to convert a third-and-5 with his legs during a scoring drive last year vs Washington.

Next Question:


* The ASU pass rush. Nine sacks last week? Can MSU’s pass protection cope?

Yes, I think Michigan State will be okay here.

Over the years, when MSU’s blockers are substandard in a game, they usually rep the hell out of it and improve quickly, especially when they have the personnel to do it. I think Michigan State has the personnel to be okay in this area, this week, even without Chewins.

X-factors include Slade. Will he play more? Is this his coming-out party? He’s still a bit of an unknown.

X-factor: The ASU outside linebacker No. 39, Malik Lawal (6-1, 228, Jr., Temecula, Calif.).

He is legit quick. He could be a handful as a pass rusher. ASU didn’t rush him a lot last week, but when he did, he was quick, athletic, energetic, tough. Very good take-off.

* Lawal has no reputation. He didn’t start last year. He had nine tackles on the season.

I’m not going by press clippings or buzz when complimenting this guy. I’m going purely on what I see on film. Over the years, when I single out a guy with no hype like this, they usually end up in the NFL. I don’t know if this guy has the frame to get there.

* Pretty good head-and-shoulder fake to the outside then bending the hoop to get home for a sack on a third-and-long blitz in the third quarter.

I like him more on film than the other guys who other guys who posted sacks. Lawal had half a sack last week.

LJ Scott was good in pass protection last week, in my opinion. He got beat once or twice by No. 10, who was an outstanding pass rusher. Michigan State tasked Scott with being responsible for No. 10 several times in the game and Scott worked hard and did the job pretty well most of the time. That’s a tall ask. Scott, who has been a little cloudy in this area in the past, came through last week.

Scott may be needed to block No. 39 a few times, Saturday. 39 isn’t as big and rangy as No. 10 from last week but his take-off is just as good. 39 should be easier to block than No. 10 from last week.

* When watching ASU’s film, I expected to see hazardous pass rushers creating havoc on every play. But it wasn’t that way. They collected sacks via third-down blitzes, many during mop-up time. Slade is the exception.

NEXT QUESTION:


* The ASU front seven. Some of their guys up front are young, some aren’t physical. Can they hold up vs Michigan State? Is Michigan State ready to get its ground power tools oiled up?

This is a key for ASU, and for the game.

Michigan State was supposed to pound the run last week. They did okay in the second half, but not up to their expectations. They will set out to prove manhood this week.

ASU will try to prove manhood against what they perceive to be a quality running attack.

Who will prove manhood?

ASU has a very good nose tackle. He has lots of talent, but his pilot light has flickered off in the past.

95 NT RENELL WREN (6-6, 297, Sr., St. Louis)

* Solid job engaging, then disengaging for a tackle on an inside run in the 1Q.

* A plus NT, as a two-gapper, will consistently win the battle vs Michigan State centers.

* Didn’t start last year, had 21 tackles last year.

Wren is difficult to deal with because he has the power to knock you back when two-gapping. But then they will have him one-gap once in awhile, especially in short-yardage situations. If you are a center and expecting him to come right straight at you as a two-gapper, then he does a one-gapping olé number and he’s quick enough to get by you before you can adjust.

He’s talented, he’s good. I think he has NFL talent. Reminds me of former Michigan State DT Mathias Askew.

**

Wren is good. But the guy playing next to him, No. 96, is not so great.

96 DE JALEN BATES (6-4, 242, Jr., Kaplan, La.

* Not strong. Was steer-rassled to the ground a couple of times vs UTSA.

* Decent penetration on outside zone play but missed a tackle late in the 1Q.

* Doesn’t look strong enough to withstand a double-team block at POA.

**

Defensive tackle 97 Shannon Forman (6-2, 304, Soph., Baton Rouge) dropped into zone blitz coverage, picked off a pass and returned it 25 yards for a TD last week to give ASU a 14-0 lead. That was impressive, but I watched him the rest of the night and he wasn’t all that impressive.

Forman saw action in eight games last year.

**

With the way ASU plays defense, with a 3-4 which often asks D-lineman to “two-gap” (You need strong dudes to two-gap), well, ASU has one of them in Wren. The other guys kind of look the part, and could kind of do it vs UTSA. And Michigan State as an offense has had troubles with two-gapping defensive lines in the past (and not just Alabama’s and Oregon’s) but also I think WMU and maybe Air Force two-gapped and did well against Michigan State. Michigan State did well vs Baylor’s two-gapping d-front, and Notre Dames at times, over the years. That was with different Michigan State o-linemen. But in general, facing 30-front, two-gapping d-lines has been something that MSU’s blockers don’t salivate about. it’s like facing Syracuse’s zone. (Sorry. Too soon?)

But that’s when the DTs are strong, tailkickers.

Wren is a strong tail kicker.

The other guys, I don’t know if they can hold up. But I also don’t know whether MSU’s o-line is as good as it’s supposed to be.

Secondly, I like No. 39 as an OLB. But the other OLB is a freshman, No. 8:

8 OLB MERLIN ROBERTSON (6-3, 235, Fr. Gardena, Calif.)

* Played like a freshman. Lost contain on the QB on a zone read keeper last week in the 1Q, squeezed in too far.

* Will occasionally put his hand down to create a 4-down linemen look.

* Can deliver the hard hit when it lines up for him.

Robertson has a pretty good frame, but he’s still learning to use it.

**

Here’s the Thing: ASU, when it puts a seventh man in the box, the seventh man is usually a DB. Usually 199 pounds.

Can Michigan State isolate that 199-pounder, and/or the questionable DE in No. 96 Bates?

In theory, on the chalkboard, Michigan State SHOULD be able to pull a lineman, create extra gaps, and go right at ASU’s weaker front-seven players. But every time I think that SHOULD happen in a football game, it seems like the opponent runs extra defenders from the safety level and manages to stay alive. There have been times when the ground-and-pound did as expected, maybe better than expected, as was the case vs WSU and Minnesota last year.

ADD IT ALL UP

Is MSU’s blocking unit (including tight ends and WRs) up to that challenge this week against a beatable front seven? That’s where a big portion of this game will be decided.

Is MSU’s pass defense ready to morph and adjust to what Mr. Harry will do at WR? Or can Michigan State play him straight up, get him on the ground, and survive over the long haul without having to match up Layne on him all over the field? Michigan State will try to play its base, and see if it works. Michigan State will mix up coverages when the time comes, as they did last week. They might do it more in this game, although mixing up coverages (which includes more single-safety deep coverages and more man-to-man, leaves Michigan State more susceptible to giving up big plays. And Harry, with his ability to break tackles, is always a big play waiting to happen).

There are always unknowns this early in the season. Heck, there are unknowns in November. But the unknowns in this game make it a very interesting college football matchup for this point in the season, on campus, traveling across the country. Lots of good flavor and fabric in this matchup.

Is MSU’s pass pro ready to give Lewerke all day? If so, he should be able to hit intermediate routes against off coverage on the corners: comebacks, hitches, short ins.

That’s when ASU/Gonzales goes with an extra man in the defensive front with three DBs deep behind it.

At other times, if ASU is as “airy” in the secondary as last week (off coverage at the CBS with two deep safeties bailing), then Lewerke should chew up that air and extra space.

I’m guessing Gonzales will play it less like he did last week and more like he did for SDSU vs Stanford last year. Either way, I don’t think ASU will often press MSU’s WRs. I think there will be free releases a good chance for Lewerke to get into a rhythm with a ball control passing attack.

From there, MSU’s red zone proficiency needs to be a lot better on both sides of the ball than it was last week.

Lots of questions, lots of tests. My hunch is that Michigan State will be up to the tests and survive. But my hunch is based on MSU’s long-term body of work, not this year’s body of evidence.

Rivals.com has a contractual agreement with Pro Football Focus this year, so I get a subscription to look inside the stats.

Most of the stats are interesting, but some are misleading in my opinion.

For instance, last week, PFF had LJ Scott as the worst grade in pass blocking on the team at a grade of 26.4. (I don't think that means 26.4 percent, but I think they are graded on a 100 scale).

What they don't tell you is that LJ Scott was tasked with mirroring that No. 10 guy, whom no one else for MSU seemed to be able to block. Late in the first half, MSU seemed to take offensive tackles away from No. 10 duty and put LJ Scott on him. That's a big ask, and I thought Scott reduced the grease fire.

Scott was beaten a couple of times in the first half. In the second half, he mirrored that guy like a baskeball defender and did a good job of keeping him out of the backfield. But some of those plays eventually ended up with Lewerke being "hurried," which hurt Scott's grade with PFF. But you're talking about a RB pass protecting in space against one of the best pass rushers they will face all year. It's not like they were assignment LJ Scott to chip block and help vs No. 10 while he engaged with an o-tackle. Usually, an o-tackle was assigned to protect vs someone inside, and they left it all to LJ Scott. I thought he was impressive. He gave good effort.

Scott was on the field for 16 pass blocking plays. That's a load.

PFF had Scott with allowing 2 QB hits and 3 QB hurries, so his stat percentage suffered. But he kept No. 10 reasonably quiet in the second half.

As for the o-linemen in general, PFF grades them (unofficially) this way:

David Beedle: 80.7, which was best on the team, but low for him because he ranked in the high 90s for the year in 2017, ranking among the top five in the nation in returning offensive guards for 2018.

Tyler Higby was 73.4. That seems high to me. He was beaten for a sack by No. 10 when playing left tackle. I thought Higby was kind of so-so in this game. Perhaps he will get better as he goes along.

Luke Campbell: 70.1.

Jordan Reid: 55.9 (he was beaten by No. 10 a couple of times, but blocked No. 55 (Adewale Adeoye) for most of the second half and erased him. Adeoye is a senior who had one sack last year, so he isn't a great pass rusher, but Reid erased him and I'm surprised Reid's PFF grade wasn't better.

Kevin Jarvis: 52.7.

As for reserves:

Blake Bueter: 77.9 in the first quality playing time of his career. He played left guard, giving Beedle a breather during a long third-quarter drive (the one that ended in a field goal after the Cody White TD was called back due to a flag).

Bueter was on the field for 15 snaps.

Matt Allen: 56.7. I didn't see any mistakes from him. He was on the field for 27 snaps.

At yackle, Chase Gianacakos was 37. That figure surprises me. I thought he was serviceable. MSU had Gianacakos responsible for No. 10 during a key third-and-two situation with 1:53 left in the first half. No. 10 began to attack Chase, but then backed off. Lewerke connected with White over the middle for a gain of 10. Gianacakos probably didn't register a passing grade for that play (or a failing one), but MSU showed confidence in him in putting him to the short side, where No. 10 usually played.

**
As for Luke Campbell, he started at left tackle and there were some issues, but he didn't allow a sack.

I had him with a couple of plus plays:

+ Did the job okay vs 10 on third-and-6 pass to Darrell Stewart on short out route early in the 2Q.

- Got off balance on the Heyward wildcat carry during the first drive of 2h, and was flagged for holding as he was getting beat. That's probably the play Dantonio was talking about on Tuesday when he said Campbell got caught without having both feet firmly planted on the ground.

+ On toss sweep, good athletic play to get out to the OLB, helping LJ Scott gain of 6 yard (that was the fist play after Lewerke’s pick six.)

I agree with Paul Konyndyk that LJ Scott's game was a lot more impressive when I rewatched the game, than when I watched it live the first time.

He played so many snaps, and his effort and engagement always seemed to be 100 percent, in a variety of tasks.

For example, the first three snaps of the game winning drive, Scott had to hurriedly get out to the right edge of the formation as a lead blocker for Darrell Stewart on a pop pass sweep. Scott didn't quite sustain his block, but he had a key blocking assignment on the edge and went after it.

Second play, he's the primary receiver on a swing pass to the right flat. That was the play when he attempted to hurdle a defender. It gained 5 yards.

Then on a huge third-and-two, he was on an island, responsible for pass protecting against No. 10.

No. 10 turned him inside-out on that play, but didn't get to the QB. Lewerke, with a three-step timing pass, connected with Cody White for a first down, and the game-winning drive was underway.

The offense relied so much on LJ Scott in a variety of ways to get that drive started, after he had already played about 60 snaps.

In this case, I don't criticize LJ Scott's grades and performance. He did all he could, and that's all you can ask.

Lewerke has 'it' factor as tri-captain

Login to view embedded media
Jim Comparoni • SpartanMag.com
@JimComparoni

EAST LANSING - Mark Dantonio needed only one word to describe Brian Lewerke’s leadership ability.

“It,” Dantonio said. “He has ‘it.’”

The “it” factor helped Lewerke become a starting quarterback as a sophomore, a rising star in college football heading into his junior year and now, as of Thursday, one of three new captains for the Michigan State football team.

Lewerke, senior safety Khari Willis and junior linebacker Joe Bachie were named tri-captains after a team vote, at the conclusion of August camp.

“Coach D has kind of told me last year, and the year before, to come out of my shell a little bit and address and confront people when you want things to get done,” Lewerke said. “Not just expect them to do it, but demand it from them and that kind of helped push me into that sort of role.”

Lewerke is a friendly, soft-spoken, serious, smiling west coast guy from Phoenix who came to Michigan State because of the program’s success in the wins column, the Spartans’ penchant for producing NFL quarterbacks and clear indications from Dantonio and former Michigan State quarterback Kirk Cousins that Lewerke’s Christian-based faith and personality would be warmly-received. Lewerke’s teammates have grown to respect those qualities. And Lewerke has grown to love Michigan State.

“Man, this is the best decision I’ve ever made,” he said. “I’m so happy I came out of state, got away from home, to get that experience.

(Continue reading below)

I probably went too deep with this story.

I might be better off writing two or three stories, one on offense, one on defense, one on people. But I kind of throw them all together. It's not good for click count, but I don't care about click count.

So here's the deep read:


https://michiganstate.rivals.com/news/dotcomp-a-deep-digest-of-good-and-bad

Pre-Snap Read: MSU vs Utah State

By Jim Comparoni

This is the one day a year in which I write about where I THINK Michigan State is, as a team, and what challenges I THINK the opponent will present, less than 30 hours from kickoff.

We’ve talked about Michigan State through June and July, the games coming up at Arizona State, at Penn State, the Michigan game, can Michigan State get past Ohio State, can Michigan State compete for the Big Ten East championship?

We’ve bandied the same questions around since June. Or since March. Or since February. And we don’t know much more about the Spartans now than we did in January.

A few things of note have happened since January. Michigan State has apparently gone through spring practice and August camp without any season-ending injuries. Josiah Scott won’t be available at cornerback. There are concerns about Cole Chewins. But no news is somewhat good news on the injury front.

Jon Reschke is back. Tyler Higby is the new center. Jacub Panasiuk has a chance to give Michigan State a decent bookend opposite Kenny Willekes.

With Michigan State returning 19 starters, and something like 40 of the top 44, there are fewer questions heading into this season than I can ever remember.

I used to write an annual column in SPARTAN Magazine at this time of year in which I would list the x-factors for the coming season. As a rule of thumb, I discovered that seasons in which there were MORE x-factors, i.e. question marks, were the seasons in which Michigan State was less likely to climb to .500 or better.

Not surprisingly, the seasons with the fewest x-factors turned out the best.

If I were to write that column today, about the x-factors for the 2018 season, there wouldn’t be many (as long as the team doesn’t get hit hard by the injury bug).

The question marks? Higby at center? Not much of a question. He’ll be solid.

Matt Sokol at tight end? He’s a former starter. I think he’s ready to go from functional to a plus player.

Replacing Josiah Scott? That’s a task. Michigan State will be at least functional with Josh Butler. His back-up, Tre Person, has a good reputation on the practice field. But he’s unproven. I think he’s going to be good some day. He’s exciting. But he hasn’t done it yet. So he’s an x-factor. But he’s not a starter.

You have to dig into the second string to find question marks and x-factors.

Back-up QB? If that’s one of your team’s biggest question marks, then your team probably doesn’t have many problems.

True freshman Xavier Henderson at the slot corner position in the nickel defense? He’s talented and poised beyond his years, but he’s still a teen-aged rookie. Teen-aged rookies almost never play smooth, relaxed and up to their potential in their first few games. I remember Renaldo Hill getting grief from fans after getting beat a few times.

Henderson will be good. But there will be a process. Michigan State is willing to wade through that process to get him ready for the rest of it.Butler played the slot nickel position last year. From all indications, it sounded like Henderson was the choice ahead of Butler at nickel slot corner coming out of the spring. Butler is functional. So I would have to assume Henderson is functional-plus.

(So why didn’t Henderson compete for the corner job when Scott went down with the injury? Well, Henderson is more of a true safety. It would have been harder for him to make the move from safety to corner than it was for Tre Person).

* The replacement for Chris Frey? Frey was good, a motor guy, a full-tilt guy, kind of inspirational. But he missed his share of tackles and pass defense assignments. Michigan State continues to stage auditions between Tyriq Thompson, Brandon Randle and even Reschke for work at ‘money’ linebacker.

Frey was an overall plus. There is no guarantee that his replacements will out-produce him, but I wouldn’t bet against it. I suppose that’s an x-factor with upside.

Five, 10, 12, 15 years ago, I remember the x-factor column listing five, six, eight areas of key unknowns. That’s not the way Michigan State is anymore.

The Top 40 players in the program are solid, they’re proven, they’re committed. You know what you’re going to get from them, which makes football life happier for the fans, doesn’t it?

So Michigan State is primed, charged, talented and ready to kick this thing off. The offense didn’t produce fireworks last year, but on a points-per-possession basis, the Spartan offense could become quite effective and efficient this year. After practice on Tuesday, Brian Lewerke said he was looking forward to seeing how many points this offense can score. He’s not the type of guy who gets cranky about public perceptions, but he seems eager to help prove that MSU’s offense isn’t a plodding Pinto.

Don’t assume that MSU’s nationally-ranked defense, with nine returning starters, is automatically going be better than MSU’s offense. I think that’s going to be a tight comparison in 2018, which should be good news for Spartan fans.

**

This is also the day of the year when I try to gauge how dangerous the opponent is. The opening-night opponent is usually a mid-major, sometimes an FCS team, usually coming off a winning season, usually with optimism of their own. And we never have any film of them. So the gauges and guesses are even more prone to err than usual.

Here’s the point: We’ve never seen these two teams play. Michigan State? We think we know what they are, but we haven’t seen them play. Same thing, to a much higher degree, with Utah State.

What’s the level of concern for this game?

I would say Michigan State, and its fans, should have more concern for this game than was the case for last year’s opener against Bowling Green, or the 2016 opener vs. Furman, or the 2014 opener against Jacksonville State or the 2011 opener vs Youngstown State.

The concern level should maybe be similar to the game at Western Michigan in 2015 (which Michigan State won 37-24, but allowed a mess of yards).

That WMU team turned out to be better than anyone expected in 2015, and much better a year later. That WMU team had legitimate NFL talent at more positions than I think this Utah State team will have, but in terms of the level of concern heading into a season opener, I would equate it to 2015. One difference is that Michigan State will be playing this game at home. Playing at WMU in 2015 was probably worth 10 to 12 points for the Broncos.

**

Here are my macro takeaways on Utah State after watching a couple of their games from last year, and researching their personnel:

1. I’ve never seen an Michigan State opponent with so many transfers.

Twelve of Utah State’s starting 22 did not begin their college football careers at Utah State. Eight of their starters are junior college transfers. Six of them transferred from Oklahoma State, TCU, USC, BYU, Texas Tech, Tennessee-Chattanooga. Four of those guys transferred from those BCS schools, to a juco, then to Utah State.

There are two BYU transfers in the starting lineup.

2. You’ve probably heard that Utah State returns all five of its o-line starters. That’s pretty much true, although the left tackle was a spot starter last year. You may not have heard that two of the seniors on the o-line are at least 24-years-old after redshirting at BYU, going on an LDS mission, and then transferring through junior college to Utah State. There are some grown men on this team. The last time Michigan State faced a team with grown men, BYU manhandled the Spartans during a terrible 2016 season.

3. There is a chance Utah State will start first-year juco transfer Darwin Thompson (5-8, 200) at running back.

The last time Michigan State faced a team with a first-year juco transfer at RB, the guy’s name was Rueben Droughns, of Oregon, and he promptly out-played Sedrick Irvin during a beatdown of Nick Saban’s Spartans in 1998.

That Oregon team was loaded. I’m not going to compare that Oregon team, of Akili Smith, with this Utah State team by any means. But none of us had any idea who or what Rueben Droughns was going to be.

During the talking season, the unknown is undefeated. But on gameday, an unknown first-time starter is usually not something to be overly concerned with. But I have no idea what that guy plays like.

FINAL ANALYSIS FIRST:

* You’ve been hearing all year about Utah State being an uptempo spread team.

Please realize that just because a team is a spread/tempo team doesn’t mean they are a pass-happy offense.

Utah State attempted more run plays than pass plays last year. The Aggies are close to 50-50 in terms of play call balance.

* Utah State’s run game is pretty basic by spread/tempo standards. They use the zone, the zone read, some split zone, some zone RPOs. It’s conventional spread offense, with the bubble screen threat to the slot WR seemingly an option at all times.

They throw the RB quite a bit, like Washington State did. They’ll swing it out to him in the flat, in rhythm, if the read takes the QB there.

As is in the case against most spread teams, pursuing and tackling in space will be key for Michigan State. Michigan State is ready to do that, and do it while keeping starters fresh, and using second- and third-stringers.

* Utah State’s o-line is experienced, but they’re not great. There have been times when I’ve said the o-line of a Central Michigan or a Western Michigan was of Big Ten caliber. This Utah State o-line is probably similar to those, maybe a notch lower, in my opinion.

Michigan State’s run defense ranked No. 2 in the country last year. I don’t think MSU’s run defense was ACTUALLY as good as that statistical ranking, but the run defense was good. This year it will be better.

I would be floored if Utah State is able to run the ball with any consistency. I would be disappointed in Michigan State if the Spartans allow more than 75 yards rushing.

Utah State’s run offense is decent. The QB is a threat on the zone read keeper, maybe six or seven times a game. Last year’s top tailback graduated. He was a MAC-level type of RB. The second-stringer (Gerald Bright, 5-9, 195, Jr., 249 yards last year, 8.9 per carry) is back. If he played for Michigan State last year, I doubt he would have been ahead of Madre London in the three-deep.

They run the zone, and the zone, and the zone. They’ll occasionally pull the left guard and run ‘power’ read option.

Penn State last year, with the best RB in America, wasn’t varied enough with its run game. That’s why Barkley barely rushed for more than 1,200 yards and was bottled up by several teams.

Utah State last year was similarly homogenous with its run plays. The double-teams as part of their zone concepts last year will be handled by MSU’s defensive front. The pull guards get to their landmark, but not with freight-train ferocity.

MSU’s defense has a big reputation, especially the front seven. They should be revved up and ready to go. Forget the 75-yard mark, I would be disappointed in Michigan State if the Spartans didn’t go 1975 Steelers vs the run game on Friday night. That’s a lot to ask, because Utah State was a bowl team last year, a respectable .500 in the respectable Mountain West, and Utah State has a respectable ground game as part of a respectable offense. But Michigan State is expected to be disrespectful on defense, especially vs. the run. So set the expectations high on defense, and look for the Spartans to live up to them.

There is one caveat: This is opening night. There is a chance Utah State might have revamped the way it tries to run the ball, and might hit Michigan State with some wrinkled. That could be worth a drive or two. Youngstown State hit Michigan State with some strange ball control cross buck type of stuff during the 2011 opener. Wrinkles are always a possibility. Heck, Penn State changed its offense midway through the 2016 season and won a Big Ten title doing it.

With Utah State, I doubt we’ll see many changes. They’ll run their inside zone, they’ll work the QB read, and the RPO. I expect them to remain who they are. Offensive coordinator David Yost is a colorful cat who looks more like a stunt double for Jeff Daniels’ bushy-blonde character in “Dumb and Dumber” than a football coach.

I try not to judge anyone by their looks. But I like this guy's style.

He’s certainly wise and well-credentialed when it comes to this sport.

His background:

* 2017: OC at Utah State

* 2016: pass game coordinator and QBs coach for Mark Helfrich at Oregon.

* 2013-15: Inside WRs coach for Mike Leach at Washington State.

* 2009-2012: OC for Gary Pinkel at Missouri.

He was credited with developing a great run of QBs at Missouri (Brad Smith, Chase Daniel, Blaine Gabbert) when zone read spread was in its infancy.

So this guy feels confident in his chalk. I could be wrong, but I wouldn’t expect any major changes to their offense this year. They’re going to try to hit the inside zone, and I expect Michigan State to stuff it.

Utah State head coach Matt Wells says he expects MSU’s defensive front seven to be the best they see all year.

You might think “duh,” but don’t disrespect Utah State or the Mountain West like that. They played plenty of reputable teams last year, including Wisconsin (losing 59-10, after leading 10-0 for most of the first half), Wake Forest, BYU, Colorado State, Boise State.

Wake Forest is a quality team, in case you didn’t know. Dave Clausen is one of the best coaches in the country you’ve never heard of.

They won’t get freaked out by MSU’s stadium or talent. But they’re going to need to find a way to win outside of the run game.

**

* Utah State’s pass game is predicated off of zone read play action. The QB, Jordan Love (6-4, 225, Soph., Bakersfield, Calif.)

* Started the final six games at QB as a freshman in 2017, taking the job from an incumbent senior who had passed for more than 7,000 career yards. They think Love is the future, and they began investing reps and playing time in him last year, hoping for a Boise State payoff in the years ahead.

He passed for 1631 yards, 8 TDs, 6 INTs, last year, 55 pct. He was 3-3 as a starter.

He might be 4-2 as a starter, with a bowl win, if their all-conference kicker hadn’t missed four field goals in an overtime loss to New Mexico State in the Arizona Bowl.

His coach describes Love as a “cool customer under pressure, versatile, works hard in the film room.”

(As for the incumbent senior from last year, that guy helped Utah State upset Boise State in 2015, but went 5-18 in the next 23 games. So they pulled the plug on him midway through last year. He’s graduated.)

* Love has a dash of athleticism, and a knack to keep it and get upfield. But he’s not going to destroy you with the run like a Braxton Miller or Taylor Martinez.

* From what I saw last year, he’s good with slants, and short passes. He can throw on his run to the right, something they probably didn’t do enough of, in the games I watched. His accuracy and timing was spotty last year. But he was a freshman.

Is he the type of guy who will remain spotty with his timing and accuracy? That’s hard to predict.

When Michigan State beat TCU in the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl in 2012, they held an athletic but erratic former running back named Trevone Boykin go 13-of-29 passing. He uncorked a couple of long ones, but looked far from NFL potential on that night. Boykin finished fourth in the Heisman Trophy voting in 2014 and played two years in the NFL.

I’m not ready to say that Love isn’t capable of doing what Boykin did. But I’m not ready to say he has no chance to make major improvements.

Login to view embedded media
Senior WR Ron’Quavion Tarver, a 6-foot-3 juco transfer from Belle Glade, Fla., will big-body you in the red zone. He’s reliable, maybe not a speed burner from what I’ve seen, but he’ll test you.

The WR on the rise might be Savon Scarver (5-11, 185, Soph., Las Vegas). He had 11 catches last year, but one of them was this one:

Login to view embedded media
Scarver also had a kickoff return for a TD in their bowl game. He’s the most worrisome deep threat, in my opinion.

The combination of the athletic and occasionally-impressive young QB, and a busy but controllable zone read run game, Utah State reminds me on offense of what we’ve seen from Maryland in recent years. Their talent at WR isn’t far from what we’ve seen at Maryland, either.

Their tight end, Dax Raymond (6-5, 250, Jr.) is a guy Michigan State would love to have RIGHT NOW. He had 41 catches last year and was HM All-Mountain West.

**

I’m not trying to make their offense sound good or great. But if Michigan State shuts them down, take it from me that they will have shut down a Maryland-level offense. That might not sound like a great accomplishment, but this is an opponent worthy of Big Ten respect on offense.

**

Before we get to their defense, let’s talk about their head coach Matt Wells.

He was offensive coordinator for former Utah State head coach Gary Anderson. Wells became head coach when Andersen left Utah State to become head coach at Wisconsin. Anderson was successful at UW, but suddenly left to take the head coaching job at Oregon State, where he surprisingly failed and was fired last year.

Wells has been head coach for five years at Utah State, with four bowl appearances (2-2).

USU’s bowl games under Wells:

W vs Northern Illinois in the Poinsettia Bowl in 2013

W vs UTEP in the New Mexico Bowl in 2014

L vs Akron in the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl in 2015

L vs New Mexico State in the Arizona Bowl in 2016

Those are obviously “mid-major” bowl games, but Utah State has been a respectable participant in the post season for a program with a 22,000-seat stadium.

By the way, Andersen took USU to two bowl games, beating Toledo in the Idaho Potato Bowl in 2012, and losing to Ohio University in the 2011 Famous Idaho Potato Bowl. Prior to that, USU’s most recent bowl appearance was in 1997 when the Aggies played in the Humanitarian Bowl under head coach … John L. Smith.

Smith used to say, “There’s nothing like beating Boise in Boise!”

But Smith’s Aggies team lost to Cincinnati in the Humanitarian Bowl in ’97.

As for Wells, he seems a lot like Gary Anderson: Young, tough, organized.

**

As for Utah State’s brand of tempo on offense, Wells raised some eyebrows this week when he said the Aggies would try to wear down MSU’s defense with tempo.

This was the full-context quote:

"They (Michigan State) are big, strong and physical. Hopefully, the pace can wear them out a little bit and get them tired. There's no secret that we're going to play with pace on offense. To see where they ranked coming out of last year against the teams they did it against is pretty impressive. They're deep and they're talented. It'll be maybe the best we see all year."

So it’s not like he predicted they would wear Michigan State down with tempo. It sounds to me like he feels that their best chance for success.

Michigan State happens to have a strong front seven to contain the run and make Utah State one-dimensional. Michigan State also has good depth at most positions on defense, with defensive end being the only question mark in that category. Michigan State has become well-versed in changing personnel to keep up vs tempo-based offenses. I don’t think the wear-down attempt will succeed.

“I think we’ll be all right in that area,” Kenny Willekes told me on Tuesday.

As for any concerns that Utah State’s spread offense might give fits to Michigan State the way Northwestern’s does, well … as of now Utah State doesn’t have the pass game accuracy and efficiency to hit you with “all the throws” the way Northwestern can. Maybe Love will develop that, but as of last year’s examples, until further notice, they aren’t quite the outfit that Clayton Thorson runs for the Wildcats.

**

ON DEFENSE

Utah State has a new defensive coordinator, so it’s hard to read much into what we saw last year.

Their co-coordinator from last year, Kendrick Shaver, left in order to take the linebackers coaching job at Washington State.

Last year’s other co-coordinator, is still called the co-coordinator but was basically demoted to linebackers coach at Utah State.

The new defensive sheriff is Keith Patterson. He was Todd Graham’s long-time defensive coordinator at Arizona State, Pittsburgh and Tulsa. However, Graham demoted Patterson last year to linebackers coach as Graham unsuccessfully tried to save his job.

None of these guys - Patterson, or last year’s d-coordinator Shaver - have had much statistical success as defensive coordinators, anywhere.

Last year’s Utah State team had a miserable time trying to stop the run, ranking No. 116 in America, allowing 216 yards per game.

They have set out to solve that problem. And it’s an urgent problem. The players say Patterson has new concepts and levels of intensity in terms of improving Utah State’s run fits. I have no idea how much progress they’ve made.

Last year, they often played a 30 front (three down linemen) but showed a four-man front at times against Wisconsin.

They don’t have a lot of brawn. But they would LIKE to keep two safeties deep through most of the early and mid stage of the game, from what I’ve seen. They went to more blitzing and man to man in the fourth quarter of their bowl game against New Mexico State’s spread offense.

Against Wisconsin last year, they tried to make up for their lack of brawn by swarming extra men to the box. There’s nothing revolutionary about that. Washington State played that way all last year, with great success, until they played Michigan State, a game in which the Cougars had little success on defense.


Last year against Washington State's smaller, quick, get-numbers-to-the-ball defense, Michigan State went with its usual style of offense for a possession or two. Then MSU started hammering away with extra tight ends and jumbo personnel. They put a hole in Washington State doing it that way and I would expect Michigan State to try its hand with the ground-and-pound in this game. Maybe not right away. But when Utah State gets into their third, fourth, fifth defensive possession, and they don’t quite have the second string that Michigan State has, I would expect that to be the time when Michigan State tries to load up the run and play bully ball. That approach worked well in MSU’s most recent game and the Spartans would like to test it and see if they can build off of their bowl game performance, getting back to some power football.

**

Utah State’s main attribute on defense last year was their ability to cause turnovers. Utah State forced 29 turnovers last year, the sixth most in the country. And they also picked up five defensive touchdowns off those turnovers, the fourth most nationally.

“We did a tremendous job last year doing that,” Well said. “Ball searching. That's the goal again this year. Hopefully, we'll get a little lucky and get some balls on the ground.”

They seem to prod and hammer at the football more than most teams. That might be why we saw Michigan State seem to drill ball security in new and different ways in August camp than I’ve seen in the past.

**

ADD IT ALL UP

Again, it’s dangerous to try to read tea leaves at this time of year. We haven’t seen these two teams play. We haven’t seen demonstrable strengths and weaknesses; we can only guess.

That being said, I’m expecting Utah State to have a good offensive script of play-action, keep-away passing in the early stages, like they did against Wisconsin last year.

Wisconsin helped by fumbling a snap deep in their own territory on their second possession.
Utah State quickly built a 10-0 lead at the end of the first quarter. Wisconsin dominated from there, but this year’s Utah State team is supposed to be better than last year’s. One Utah State insider told me that this year’s team will be Wells’ most talented Utah State team since his first year on the job when he inherited a good roster from Andersen.

If Utah State from this year played Maryland from last year, I’d call it a toss-up.

Last year, Michigan State beat Maryland 17-7.

I wouldn’t be shocked if Utah State kept this game interesting for three quarters. From there, Michigan State had better not fall prey to Utah State’s propensity to force turnovers.

Overall, down-in and down-out, you have to like Brian Lewerke’s game management, consistency and occasional explosiveness. And you have to like his developing mind for the game, and ability to read defenses with three terrific wide receivers to choose from and MSU's underrated use of route combinations.

Michigan State should have strong balance on offense, and the ability to stuff the run on defense and make Utah State one-dimensional. Those should be healthy building points toward a comfortable, double-digit victory.

* It's notable that Luke Campbell is listed as either/or with Cole Chewins at left tackle. MSU uses the either/or at three positions. It's not like past occasions when MSU has had either/or at several positions. Today, it's just a select few.

What's my take? Well, Chewins has been good in camp. I would wonder about his availability for this game.

* Tyler Higby continues to be a clear-cut No. 1 at center. He earned the first string job after the first Jersey Scrimmage and obviously solidified it in the second scrimmage and days afterward.

New Names

* Redshirt freshman wide receiver CJ Hayes (6-1, 205, Bowling Green, Ky.) is the No. 3 W-WR. That's the first time his name has shown up on an official depth chart. He's making progress. See him in action in practice here: Login to view embedded media
(more to come)

Breakout Watch: five names to know on defense


Paul Konyndyk • SpartanMag.com



With Josiah Scott sidelined for the first month of the '18 season, Josh Butler (19) has the opportunity to be a breakout player on defense.
Dane Robison


EAST LANSING – With so much experience returning on defense, it seems less likely this season that Michigan State will have as many breakout players in the mold of Kenny Willekes, Joe Bachie, Justin Layne, Josiah Scott, and David Dowell last season.

There are, however, several breakthrough candidates in the two-deep, players on the cusp of taking the step from functional to impactful.

A year ago, for instance, Gerald Owens was being touted as a rotation-worthy defensive tackle entering week one. He was better than that, something solid reviews coming from camp failed to telegraph.

Owens is a good example of an incrementally-developing veteran that is easy to overlook at this time of year. For our purposes, however, I'm limiting our pool of eligible candidates to individuals with two letters or fewer, and no more than six career starts.

1. Jacub Panasiuk
Other Spartan defenders are worthy of consideration for the top spot in this index, but Jacub Panasiuk (6-3, 254, So., Lake Park, IL) is the best fit from my perspective.

Panasiuk has the physical ability to do big things. He has a spot in the starting lineup at boundary defensive end, and he has experience to build upon.

It remains to be seen whether Panasiuk can develop into a boundary end on the level of Lawrence Thomas, but I like his chances of emerging as a consistent playmaker as a sophomore this season.

“He’s a playmaker, and he’ll be pretty good this year,” said junior d-end Kenny Willekes, a third-team All-Big Ten selection who led the Spartan d-line in sacks (7.0) and tackles for loss (14.5) last season. “He played a few snaps last year, and he’s always going to do his job.”

Panasiuk recorded 15 tackles, including three tackles for loss, and a sack in 13 games last season despite struggling with ankle injuries.

“I believe my pass-rush ability has increased, gotten a lot better since last year,” Panasiuk said. “Last year, I wasn’t able to move well laterally because of my ankles. This year my ankles are healthy and I’m moving a lot better.”

Panasiuk is healthy, fit, more explosive, and he has a strong foundation of game experience. Each of those things will serve him well as he aims to make a breakthrough.

“He looks a little bit quicker, which is good,” said defensive coordinator Mike Tresselduring the final week of training camp. “He’s got a little Kenny Willekes awkward, body torque stuff going on.”

T-2. Tyriq Thompson and Brandon Randle


Jacub Panasiuk (96) and Brandon Randle (26).

Gun to my head, I’m choosing Thompson over Randle because I’m tired of being predictable, and choosing upside over accountability.

For this index, however, both are on even footing. Thompson will likely get the nod as Michigan State's starting Money linebacker on Friday, but Randle will finally get his chance to show us what he can do at the position he wants to play.

(Continued below).

I'm interested in watching Utah State Tipa Galeia (6-5, 230, Jr., Euless, Texas). He transferred from TCU and has yet to play for the Aggies.

Galeia will be wearing No. 10. I've never seen him play. But there is buzz that he might be their best pass rusher.

“Tipa Galeai is going to be a major force,” said head coach Matt Wells. “Coming off the edge, he's got a quick twitch, he's got speed, he's long, he's extremely long, and, hopefully, he can produce a few sacks."

He was scout team co-defensive MVP for TCU during his first year at TCU in 2015.

He had 3.5 sacks as a sophomore at TCU in 2016. He had a sack and forced a fumble for TCU in the Liberty Bowl against Georgia

Scout.com ranked him as the No. 5 defensive end in Texas during his senior year in high school. He was a three-star recruit and is one of 12 Aggie starters who didn't begin their college careers at Utah State.

**

MSU's pass protection has been good against most teams in recent years. Cole Chewins has struggled when going against the best. There are questions about Chewins' availability. If Luke Campbell has to guard Brian Lewerke's blind side, I'll be interested to see what kind of test he gets from the new No. 10 for Utah State.

If Chewins has to sit out, can Campbell play all four quarters? If Campbell needs a breather, who is his back-up? Is redshirt freshman Mustafa Khaleefa ready, or might Tyler Higby move from center to tackle as perhaps MSU's fourth-best tackle.

If Campbell has to play on the left side, is sophomore Jordan Reid ready to go all four quarters at right tackle. If not, who subs in for Reid?

MSU has many team strengths and lots of reason for optimism, but there are potential questions and issues as well.

Read & React: Let's Talk MSU Football



Jim Comparoni • SpartanMag.com
@JimComparoni

EAST LANSING - This is a new feature in which we list some noteworthy quotes from Mark Dantonio’s press conference, you read them, and we react.

Dantonio on LJ Scott’s problems with fumbling last year:
“He's got to hold onto the football. He was very good really the two previous years. He had some hits, blocking assignments maybe not made, whatever the case. I think his knowledge of the game has improved over the course of time. I think he'll be ready to play. I think he's ready to play. I think he is looking forward to this season. There's a reason he came back and is looking forward to it.”

Reaction: I think LJ Scott is going to have a big game, Friday night. I think the Spartans are going to load up and test Utah State with heavy formations the way they did against Washington State, and I think Michigan State will succeed. Michigan State might not play it that way in its first two possessions, but by the third possession, I think we’ll see regular doses of 22 (two backs, two tights) or even 23 personnel (two backs, three tights).

I expect Scott to run with the tenacity he showed in the Holiday Bowl, something he hasn’t been able to harness week-in and week-out as a Spartan. He ran harder in the bowl game, into contact, through contact. He’s usually good when coming off a break, with something to prove, and both of those dynamics are in place this week.

The question is whether he will continue to play well, week-in and week-out. Does he have the durability, the ball security? Those are questions that can be the difference between an 8-4 season and a 10-2 season. If he can play eight or nine or 10 games like he did against Washington State, a tough Michigan State team becomes even tougher.

If he coughs up the ball as he did at times last year (three fumbles in the first three games), and in 2016 in the turning-point moment of a turning-point game against Wisconsin, then something south of 9-3 could happen.

Things develop quickly at tailback. By week two or three, we might be talking about Connor Heyward as a rising star in the conference, or one of the freshmen as a surprisingly effective weapon. That’s why August talk is limited in terms of body-of-work evidence. There are enough times when we as public and media don’t know what we’re talking about. In August, there are times when we don’t know what we don’t know. MSU’s back-up tailback situation fits that description. But so does the talented starter.

On senior linebacker Jon Reschke:


Jon Reschke pressures Indiana's Nate Sudfeld in 2015.

“He's been out of football for two years. I think he'll show up on some special teams, different areas. He's done what he's needed to do. Our football team feels as they do about him. We're going to play him as we play all of our players, really.

“Sort of continue to watch that situation. It sort of is what it is. The other two guys deserve an opportunity to play, the guys we talked about earlier (Tyriq Thompson and Brandon Randle). I'm sure he'll see the field.” - Dantonio

**

Reaction: Reschke has worked to try to regain favor with teammates after an inexcusable comment made in the winter of 2016/17, which caused his dismissal from the team. Then he petitioned to return to the team, and gained the apparent unanimous blessing of his teammates.

None of that stuff is any of my business.

As for football, I’m hearing that he is hustling around and playing well. Joe Bachie described him as an “energy bunny.”

Bachie was a true freshman in 2016 when Reschke last played for the Spartans. They shared the practice field in August and September of 2016 when Bachie was working his way up from scout team and into an emergency role as a reserve after Reschke went down with a foot injury and Riley Bullough battled a shoulder injury.

(Continued below)

Camp Update: O-line in Focus

Ricardo Cooney
SpartanMag.com





Kevin Jarvis tangles with Raequan Williams.

EAST LANSING - With three potential All-Big Ten picks anchoring the team’s skill positions in junior quarterback Brian Lewerke, senior running back LJ Scott and senior wide receiver Felton Davis, the Michigan State football team has the potential to put up a lot of points in 2018.

Last season, during a 10-win season, MSU averaged nearly 25 points per game, while totaling almost 5,000 yards of total offense.

Michigan State ranked No. 10 in the Big Ten in scoring offense in 2017. If the Spartans expect to surpass that production this season, one area that will need to be the strongest it’s been in the past five seasons will be the offensive line.

All indications, for a program that has sent four offensive linemen to the NFL in the past three seasons - Jack Conklin (Tennessee Titans), Donavon Clark (Los Angeles Chargers), Jack Allen (New Orleans Saints) and Brian Allen (Los Angeles Rams) - is that the Spartans will once again attempt to be defined by a strong run game and an opportunistic and potentially quick-strike passing attack.

The offensive line lost just one significant contributor from last season in Brian Allen.

The Spartans have six returning offensive linemen with starting experience and seven who have seen significant game reps.

The starting lineup is expected to be:

* Cole Chewins (6-8, 290, Jr., Clarkston) at left tackle.

* David Beedle (6-5, 333, Sr., Clarkston) at left guard.

* Tyler Higby (6-5, 285, Jr., Houston) at center.

* Kevin Jarvis (6-4, 321, Soph., Chicago) at right guard.

* At right tackle, Luke Campbell (6-5, 290, Soph., Lewis Center, Ohio) or Jordan Reid (6-4, 275, Soph., Detroit).

“In terms of guys who know what to do, we’re set,’’ said assistant head coach and offensive line coach Mark Staten, in his 12th season. “K.J. (Kevin Jarvis) should be a dominant player for us and he’s shown that in practice. He’s probably the best puncher on our team. He’s got those big thick, ham hock hands and he’s doing really well with that.’’

'PHYSCIAL, TOUGH, MEAN'


David Beedle

Beedle earned third team All-Big Ten honors last year, while Campbell and Jarvis were named to the honorable mention All-Big Ten team.

“The offensive line and the running game was definitely a big focus point all winter, spring and even now into camp,’’ Chewins said. “We’re just trying to be that physical, tough, mean bunch of guys that the Michigan State line has always been known to be and whether that’s finishing a block or improving some technique, we’re doing everything and anything we need to do to get back to where we want to be.

“We have a bunch of guys back and that gives you a comfortability sense. It allows you to really know the guy playing to the left of you or to the right of you. So now, we’re just trying to take that experience that we didn’t have last year and grow with it.’’

(Continue reading below).

The Football 411: Defense in Focus


Byron Bullough (38) and Tyriq Thompson engage in a tackle/wrap drill.

Jim Comparoni • SpartanMag.com
@JimComparoni

EAST LANSING - I’ve seen some Augusts in the past when Michigan State seemed to be scrambling through its scrimmages, auditioning players to fill key vacancies while the countdown to the season’s kickoff ticked ran thin.

Sometimes these problems lead to difficult seasons.

Sometimes, as was the case with the QB and RB derbies of 2013, the Spartans emerged just fine. (That was the year when Mark Dantonio frustratedly activated true freshman Damion Terryinto the QB competition because the other three candidates weren’t practicing well. Earlier that year, Dantonio plugged Riley Bullough into the tailback picture because Jeremy Langford and the others weren’t instilling confidence. Well, things turned out okay that year, with a Rose Bowl win and No. 3 final ranking).

But usually, mid-August juggling creates concern.

This year, there isn’t much juggling going on at the Skandalaris Center, other than at the linebacker positions, where the Spartans have more proven candidates at the position than any time I can remember. At linebacker, Michigan State is juggling from a position of strength, not desperation.

Overall, Michigan State seems to be coasting through camp the way you’d expect from a team that returns 19 starters, and many key reserves, from a 10-win, Top 15 team.

The latest example: The Spartans had the luxury of limiting the reps of some returning starters during last week’s Jersey Scrimmage. Mike linebacker Joe Bachie didn’t play much in the scrimmage. He knows the defense, the coaches know what he can do, he plays a physically-demanding position, hence the reason to limit his August wear and tear.

“The guys who had already solidified positions, we limited their reps,” said defensive coordinator Mike Tressel. “We had a lot of guys get opportunities to run reps with the ones and play at that level.”

That sounds like a good step toward sharpening MSU’s second string and depth.

Is there a negative to this approach? Might Michigan State’s starters be a little less game-sharp by a week from Friday? I doubt it. Michigan State is known for banging pretty good throughout August. They’ll be tough.

**

The coaches gained a read on a handful of questions heading into these last days of camp, with game prep for the Aug. 31 opener against Utah State due to begin on Sunday.

Among the questions:

* Which players are going to make up the regular rotation at the linebacker positions?

* Which freshmen are going to be in the playing group early in the year, and which ones are in position to play more than four games?

* What do the candidates look like at boundary defensive end?

The latest clues:

QUESTION 1: AT LINEBACKER ...


Grayson Miller and Jon Reschke.

1. Many of us assumed the starting trio would be Bachie at Mike linebacker, Andrew Dowell at ‘star’ linebacker and most likely Tyriq Thompson at ‘money’ linebacker.

Bachie is a lock.

Dowell has been a functional ‘star’ linebacker in the past. Sophomore Antjuan Simmons was cutting in on Dowell’s playing time at the end of last season and has the capacity to overtake Dowell if Dowell doesn’t improve and Simmons stays healthy.

“You can’t take your eyes off of Antjuan,” Bachie said. “He’s a smart player; he plays fast.”

Jon Reschke played ‘star’ earlier in his career. He might not be the prototypical slot linebacker against tempo spread teams, but don’t rule him out for some special ops duty at ‘star’ against physical teams.

Reschke is best-equipped to play ‘money.’ That’s the inside linebacker position he played the last time we saw him in an Michigan State uniform, in 2016. But his background also includes time at the Mike. It’s my understanding that he has repped at all three this month.

Reschke missed most of 2016 and all of 2017. There has been some rust, but he also flashes the honorable mention All-Big Ten level of play he showed as a sophomore in 2015.

“He’s getting better every day,” Bachie said. “He’s still quick, he’s still explosive and he’s strong as could be.

“He’s an energy bunny. He gels well with everyone. He’s not selfish. So he’s going to go with the twos, threes and get his reps and we’re going to move forward with it. But he’s competing for a spot with Tyriq, Brandon and Byron and he’s having a great camp.”

RELIEF FOR BACHIE?
Bachie played through some pain last year, as do all hard-hitting Mike linebackers. He also sat out the spring. Would Michigan State like to give Bachie more relief this year? That seems likely, and it’s a good idea. Michigan State happens to have quality back-ups. Senior Byron Bullough is equipped to provide that relief. Word is that Bullough has taken his game up a level. He’s been functional in the past. They say Bullough is flat-out good now.

Camp Update: Defensive Ends


Jacub Panasiuk had 15 tackles including three TFLs last year as a true freshman back-up.

By Jim Comparoni • SpartanMag.com


EAST LANSING - At defensive end, Michigan State has a good one in Kenny Willekes, and the need to find a bookend for him.

Willekes was third-string All-Big Ten last year, probably heading toward bigger and better accolades this year.

The other d-end position is one of only two spots on defense at which Michigan State must find a new starter. Demetrius Cooper graduated after playing boundary defensive end adequately last year, but not spectacularly.

SpartanMag.com continues to project sophomore Jacub Panasiuk (6-3, 269) to become the starter.

Junior Justice Alexander (6-5, 257, Macedonia, Ohio) has never been part of the playing group, but he made some progress in the spring.

Regardless of who starts, Michigan State needs defensive ends to emerge and play accountable football against the run. Providing some pass rush heat would be a much-welcomed bonus.

Defensive coordinator Mike Tressel believes he has some candidates.

"Jacub Panasiuk has definitely improved," Tressel said. "He’s gotten his body better. We have a number of guys who have improved."

(Continue reading below):

Some thoughts from Mike Tressel on Brandon Randle, Jon Reschke and others:

https://michiganstate.rivals.com/news/camp-update-linebackers-1

Camp Update Continued:

SOLID START FOR QBS


Rocky Lombardi is expected to win the back-up QB job, but Theo Day could see mop-up action, too, while preserving a redshirt.

With veterans fortifying every level of the offense (and defense for that matter), Spartan quarterbacks apparently navigated things with sharpness last week as the practice season began, including redshirt freshman Rocky Lombardi and true freshman Theo Day.

“They seem a lot more calm, know what they’re doing,” Sokol said.

Lombardi (6-3, 218, Clive, Iowa) is entering is second season in the program. Day (6-5, 222, Canton, Mich./Dearborn Divine Child) enrolled in January and participated in spring drills.

“They both throw the ball really well,” Sokol said. “All of our quarterbacks are very cool, calm guys. Brian (Lewerke) never gets too worked up. All of those guys are smart dudes. It’s awesome to see those guys compete and make each other better. We have a really good quarterback room right now.”

WHAT ABOUT LEWERKE?
The junior quarterback will be a favorite interview target during MSU’s Media Day, Monday, at Spartan Stadium, and for good reason. Brian Lewerke (6-3, 215, Jr., Phoenix, Ariz.) threw for 2,793 yards last year with 20 TDs and seven interceptions in providing X-factor excellence in last year’s surprise 10-3 season.

Now he’s simply one of the top returning QBs in the country.

“Expectatons are probably high,” Lewerke said. “They are high from myself, too. I want to perform to the best of my ability for my team. I want to make sure I move this team in the right direction.”

He’s not afraid to mention statistical goals.

“Throwing for 3,000 yards would be great,” he said. “More touchdowns than I had last year, in the 25 range, would be great.”

How does he get there?

“The kind of thing I’ve been focusing on is accuracy,” Lewerke said. “That was one of my downsides last year. I only had 59 percent completion (percentage). I’m trying to get mid-60s, 65 range. That will make us a more efficient football team, more efficient offense, score more points.”

He is focusing on mechanics in order to become more consistently accurate.

“Footwork is a big part of that,” Lewerke said. “Sometimes I threw off-balance (last year). That might have been why the ball is accurate. I’ve been working on making sure my feet are grounded when I throw, make sure I bring the back foot through, making sure my arm angle is right when I throw, being comfortable in the pocket, not letting the pressure get to you if it’s coming and just throw a good ball.”

ONE TO WATCH
Put true sophomore Matt Dotson on the breakout watch list for 2018. He will see reps behind Sokol as a seam-threatening tight end.

Dotson (6-5, 249, Soph., Kenwood, Ohio/Archbishop Moeller) has been steadily adding good weight to his fast, four-star frame.

“Dotson is going to be a very good player here,” Sokol said. “I’m excited for him and all the progress he’s made. We all have things to learn and get better at, but he has really made a lot of progress, especially mentally. He’s just a good player. He’s got good hands, he runs good routes, quick guy. I’m excited for him.”

Dotson saw action in 10 games last year, and started against Rutgers. He had two catches on the year for 19 yards.

Dotson was ranked the No. 168 player in the nation by Rivals.com in 2017.

A BARBER SHOP?
Mark Dantonio has been raving about this team’s chemistry and leadership. Willis likes it too.

“The locker room for us is kind of like a barber shop in a community,” Willis said. “We’ll come and spend two hours talking about Lebron James.

“The good things, we laugh about. The bad things, we discuss and give our opinion about. It’s a comfortable place where we go and discuss how we feel about things and we keep it there.”

THE HAIR CHALLENGE
Kenny Willekes showed up with a shaved dome for August camp. He’s had some striking haircuts in the past. He challenged Willis to go with a mohawk for the new season, but so far Willis hasn’t obliged.

But Willis is still considering it.

“I love Kenny,” Willis said. “He’s a great competitor, an extremely hard worker and he’s crazy.”

What about Willekes’ hair?

“I have a sense it will be back,” Willis said.

Willekes’ motor never left. His relentless style, pitted with good speed, quickness, handy work and strength, helped him earn third-team All-Big Ten honors at defensive end last year.

Michigan State is deep in most areas, but thin at d-end. That makes Willekes one of the most valuable players on the team.

“Kenny came into his own last year and I was happy for him,” Willis said. “He has always been an extremely hard worker, going back to when he was in high school and I wanted to play against him, then and the team we lost to beat his team by 28. I still rub that in with him.”

Willis’ Jackson Lumen Christi Team lost to eventual state champion Monroe St. Mary’s, 27-26, in the Division 6 Regional Final. A week later, Monroe St. Mary’s routed Willekes’ Grand Rapids NorthPoint Christian team, 28-0, in the state semifinals.

“Kenny was a middle linebacker,” Willis said. “But he wouldn’t have got me.”