There's this talk about MSU getting conservative in the second quarter and third quarter.
It didn't strike me that way, as I watched it, but I wasn't 100 pct sure of how I felt about it. So I wanted to go back through it again, for a more measured look at how things transpired.
**
Here's what I found:
The way I saw it, four of Lewerke's last five pass attempts of the first half were disasters or near-disasters. Near-INTs and a sack. That's what I saw at the end of the first half.
He flirted with disaster all day and it would have been unwise to go large portions of the game without trying to probe the run. MSU barely probed the run, but probed it enough, in my opinion.
**
Here's something you probably didn't realize: The FG drive in the 2q that put MSU up 10-0 was all run plays.
Let's go back. MSU's previous drive (MSU's third drive of the game, after the TD and the fumble), advanced to the NU 39-yard line on a pass to Felton Davis for 30 yards.
Next play, MSU ran an RPO with Lewerke throwing a deep laser at Cody White, but White didn't know the ball was coming, didn't turn around, and it was nearly intercepted. Probably should have been intercepted. Near-disaster.
Next play, was the pop-shovel sweep to Stewart, gain of 1.
Next play, third and nine, Davis was open vs a blitz. QB didn't see him. Sack. Punt.
Where's the conservatism in that series?
On the sideline after that series, I would be asking, "On that near INT when White didn't look back for the ball on first-and-10, why didn't you try running the ball?"
The unknown is undefeated, you know
So the next time MSU got the ball, I'm running it, trying the run, probing the run.
And that's what MSU did, for gains of 2, 8 (QB draw).
So now it's first-and-10 at the NU 37 (thanks to good field position from the defense).
You've just had a near-disaster and a sack in the pass game. And you just picked up a first down on the ground. What do you do next? They chose to run the ball and I have no issue with it.
In fact, if you go to the air right there, you're going with too much risk.
First and 10: London gains 3 on an inside zone.
Second and 7: You want to throw? You would be wrong. MSU ran a left-tackle pull gap play, London gained 5.
Third and 2: This is where the arch conservatism comes out, right?
You've just run the ball well. If you throw it here and get sacked or have another near-INT, people will ask why you stopped running the ball.
So MSU ran a designed QB keep, after faking the reverse to White. Gained 1.
The QB run has been a good play for MSU all year, a good chain-mover. I don't hate the call. It didn't work. You can say they should have passed it there, but you can't guarantee that a pass would have work. The unknown is undefeated.
If you throw an INC there ,or on these other third-down stoppages in the game, people would have asked why MSU hasn't used the designed QB keeper more often.
So MSU got stopped a QB keeper on third-and-two. Burn them at the stake.
MSU kicked a field goal and went up 10-0.
I don't really have a problem with those play calls that led to the field goal drive, especially considering that MSU's previous drive ended in near disaster with a near-INT and a sack.
**
MSU's next drive, its last drive of the first half, again ended in near-disaster for the passing game.
first play of the drive: Pass to Stewart for 8 yards on an RPO. Nice.
second-and-two at the MSU 28-yard line. What do you do?
Pass the ball, right? It's second-and-two? Who in their right mind wouldn't pass the ball here? MSU is going to run the ball and get stuffed like a bunch of idiots because they're so predictable and everyone knows they're going to run it.
So MSU ran it. And Scott picked up 3 for a first down.
Drink.
So now it's first-and-10: MSU ran in inside zone. Luke Campbell was beaten up front, Scott was stopped for no gain.
So now it's second-and-10: Lewerke roleld out and threw a dangerous pass intended for White. It fell INC, but it shouldn't have been thrown.
Third-and-10: Deep pass for Stewart, nearly intercepted, broken up by Godwin Igwebuike.
Punt. Where's the conservatism in that series?
**
Then in the second half, on MSU's first drive of the third quarter, MSU sprang open two wide-open WRs for what probably should have gone for TDs of 90 yards and 74 yards, but the QB missed them.
So where was the poor play calling on those plays? Pretty good play calling, actually. Just look how open those WRs were. But the QB didn't execute.
As that drive progressed, Lewerke completed a dangerous pass to G Holmes between two defenders on third-and-7 from the 10-yard line. Again, near-disaster. Shouldn't have thrown that ball. But he got away with it.
After a play like that, you CAN'T abandon the run. You have to keep probing it.
So MSU ran a toss sweep for 3 on first and 10, and then on second down came the play when Felton Davis was wide open for a TD but Lewerke missed him.
Then on third-and-seven, Lewerke hooked up with Stewart on a fade for 24 yards. Very good coverage, very good ball, very good catch.
On the next play, first and 10, a pass to Stewart for 11 yards on an RPO.
This is midway through the third quarter? Where is this consevatism I keep hearing about?
Then on the next play, INC on a deep pass for Felton Davis. The Northwestern CB tipped the pass away. Good ball, good defense.
Went deep. Real conservative.
Then on second-and-10, it's a good time to probe the run. You can't become Sandy Schwab. MSU ran a power and gained 1 yard. And people want coaches burned at the stake, I guess, for running the ball once on second-and-10.
Then on third-and-nine, Northwestern played a coverage I'm not sure I've ever seen in a non-prevent situation. They played a three-deep with two CBs and a LB. And then they had two safeties deeper than those guys. It was a pure five-deep. There was NO ONE open beyond 12 yards, and Lewerke wisely threw short of the chains for a gain of 6.
I know some people hate it when the QB throws short of the chains on third down, but that was the wise thing to do there - just like it was wise to throw short of the chains to Rison and Cody White on key plays at the end of the Indiana games, with both guys getting the first down with after-catch yardage.
This time, throwing short of the chains set up fourth-and-three. MSU went for it, and Lewerke completed a pass to Stewart on double-slants to move the chains.
Barry Goldwater ball.
So now it's first-and-10 at the 27.
You can't abandon the run. You're Michigan State and you train all year to be able to get things going on the ground. You have to probe it. There have been times in other games when the run game suddenly starts to hum. It's not like they were getting Alabama-stuffed on run plays.
So on first-and-10, MSU probed a left guard power and only gained 2 yards. I have no problem with that play call beforehand or afterward. MSU tailbacks had 18 carries in this game. Do you really want to come out of this game having attempted only 10 or 12 tailback carries? And if you do attempt only 10 or 12 tailback carries in a game, guess what, those passing lanes aren't as open for Lewerke.
So it's second-and-8. MSU ran a screen pass for Holmes and it lost three yards. A well-drilled defense sniffed that one out.
So it's third-and-11 and Lewerke threw a pass too low for Sokol. He trapped it. INC.
MSU settled for a field goal, and missed.
So the next time MSU regained possession, there was only 4:34 left in the third quarter.
Absolutely none of the above can be considered conservative, predictable or some of the other words I've heard on the Bunker tonight.
**
MSU ran only five more plays in the third quarter.
On first-and-10 at the MSU 20, LJ Scott gained 2 yards on a power to the strong side. Probed the run. No problem, especially since MSU gained the first down on the next play.
Second-and-8: Pass to LJ Scott for 9 on a hitch. MSU went empty for that play.
Then on first and 10, fly sweep, gain of 8.
Now what do you do? And here's the rub, but I see no rub.
It's second-and-2 at the MSU 39-yard line. We're nearly three quarters into this game. Sure, MSU only has 10 points, but I can't argue with MSU's approach to any of it.
You can say MSU should throw the ball here on second-and-two. But remember all the near disasters I outlined.
I'm not sure I've ever heard a time in my life when anyone ever said that a run play on second-and-two was a bad play call.
Until today.
It's second-and-two, and that's actually an ideal time to probe the run in a game like this. There's a chance you get a 5-yard chunk, which just helps establish balance and helps your pass game in the long run. It's an easy choice in my book. It's safe, smart and a good chance of positive returns to run the ball here on second-and-two.
I wish I had been watching this game with you guys in your living rooms on TV. At this point, I would have paused the DVR and asked you for your play choice.
If you said throw the ball, I would have given you a lot of reasons why that wasn't a good idea, and why the run game needed to be fed, and explored.
Even if the play gets stopped, you can expect to at least gain 1 yard, right? And you can come back on third-and-one and pick it up right? Well, that's what MSU thought and that's where the game was lost, in some respects. But I think MSU played the wise percentages.
So MSU ran it, and Scott was stopped for no gain on a power to the weak side.
So it's third-and-2. MSU went back to the QB designed keeper. Again, the QB keeper has been a good play for MSU all year. You have a QB with live legs. You can't run zone read QB keepers 20 times a game. That would put him in harm's way. So you have to be judicious on when you use him in run plays. This was one of those times, and I think percentages were good that he would be able to move the chains.
So they ran a QB power, a type of QB designed run with a pulling guard from the back side that I don't think MSU has run all year. But it got stopped for a gain of 1 and MSU had to punt.
**
So you can claim that you were calling for pass plays on those plays mentioned above, but you know what? I don't believe you. Pass plays didn't make any more sense than run plays in those situations. There was no right or wrong in those situations. MSU chose one way to go with some of those plays. You can argue that other plays might have worked. But you cannot convince me that, prior to the snaps of any of those plays, there would have been a better chance for success with option B as opposed to the choices MSU made on those plays.
**
So I just went through the entire second and third quarter play calls. I've seen people post that MSU got too conservative in the second and third quarter after a fast start.
I don't think the actual minutiae of the situation supports that claim.
It didn't strike me that way, as I watched it, but I wasn't 100 pct sure of how I felt about it. So I wanted to go back through it again, for a more measured look at how things transpired.
**
Here's what I found:
The way I saw it, four of Lewerke's last five pass attempts of the first half were disasters or near-disasters. Near-INTs and a sack. That's what I saw at the end of the first half.
He flirted with disaster all day and it would have been unwise to go large portions of the game without trying to probe the run. MSU barely probed the run, but probed it enough, in my opinion.
**
Here's something you probably didn't realize: The FG drive in the 2q that put MSU up 10-0 was all run plays.
Let's go back. MSU's previous drive (MSU's third drive of the game, after the TD and the fumble), advanced to the NU 39-yard line on a pass to Felton Davis for 30 yards.
Next play, MSU ran an RPO with Lewerke throwing a deep laser at Cody White, but White didn't know the ball was coming, didn't turn around, and it was nearly intercepted. Probably should have been intercepted. Near-disaster.
Next play, was the pop-shovel sweep to Stewart, gain of 1.
Next play, third and nine, Davis was open vs a blitz. QB didn't see him. Sack. Punt.
Where's the conservatism in that series?
On the sideline after that series, I would be asking, "On that near INT when White didn't look back for the ball on first-and-10, why didn't you try running the ball?"
The unknown is undefeated, you know
So the next time MSU got the ball, I'm running it, trying the run, probing the run.
And that's what MSU did, for gains of 2, 8 (QB draw).
So now it's first-and-10 at the NU 37 (thanks to good field position from the defense).
You've just had a near-disaster and a sack in the pass game. And you just picked up a first down on the ground. What do you do next? They chose to run the ball and I have no issue with it.
In fact, if you go to the air right there, you're going with too much risk.
First and 10: London gains 3 on an inside zone.
Second and 7: You want to throw? You would be wrong. MSU ran a left-tackle pull gap play, London gained 5.
Third and 2: This is where the arch conservatism comes out, right?
You've just run the ball well. If you throw it here and get sacked or have another near-INT, people will ask why you stopped running the ball.
So MSU ran a designed QB keep, after faking the reverse to White. Gained 1.
The QB run has been a good play for MSU all year, a good chain-mover. I don't hate the call. It didn't work. You can say they should have passed it there, but you can't guarantee that a pass would have work. The unknown is undefeated.
If you throw an INC there ,or on these other third-down stoppages in the game, people would have asked why MSU hasn't used the designed QB keeper more often.
So MSU got stopped a QB keeper on third-and-two. Burn them at the stake.
MSU kicked a field goal and went up 10-0.
I don't really have a problem with those play calls that led to the field goal drive, especially considering that MSU's previous drive ended in near disaster with a near-INT and a sack.
**
MSU's next drive, its last drive of the first half, again ended in near-disaster for the passing game.
first play of the drive: Pass to Stewart for 8 yards on an RPO. Nice.
second-and-two at the MSU 28-yard line. What do you do?
Pass the ball, right? It's second-and-two? Who in their right mind wouldn't pass the ball here? MSU is going to run the ball and get stuffed like a bunch of idiots because they're so predictable and everyone knows they're going to run it.
So MSU ran it. And Scott picked up 3 for a first down.
Drink.
So now it's first-and-10: MSU ran in inside zone. Luke Campbell was beaten up front, Scott was stopped for no gain.
So now it's second-and-10: Lewerke roleld out and threw a dangerous pass intended for White. It fell INC, but it shouldn't have been thrown.
Third-and-10: Deep pass for Stewart, nearly intercepted, broken up by Godwin Igwebuike.
Punt. Where's the conservatism in that series?
**
Then in the second half, on MSU's first drive of the third quarter, MSU sprang open two wide-open WRs for what probably should have gone for TDs of 90 yards and 74 yards, but the QB missed them.
So where was the poor play calling on those plays? Pretty good play calling, actually. Just look how open those WRs were. But the QB didn't execute.
As that drive progressed, Lewerke completed a dangerous pass to G Holmes between two defenders on third-and-7 from the 10-yard line. Again, near-disaster. Shouldn't have thrown that ball. But he got away with it.
After a play like that, you CAN'T abandon the run. You have to keep probing it.
So MSU ran a toss sweep for 3 on first and 10, and then on second down came the play when Felton Davis was wide open for a TD but Lewerke missed him.
Then on third-and-seven, Lewerke hooked up with Stewart on a fade for 24 yards. Very good coverage, very good ball, very good catch.
On the next play, first and 10, a pass to Stewart for 11 yards on an RPO.
This is midway through the third quarter? Where is this consevatism I keep hearing about?
Then on the next play, INC on a deep pass for Felton Davis. The Northwestern CB tipped the pass away. Good ball, good defense.
Went deep. Real conservative.
Then on second-and-10, it's a good time to probe the run. You can't become Sandy Schwab. MSU ran a power and gained 1 yard. And people want coaches burned at the stake, I guess, for running the ball once on second-and-10.
Then on third-and-nine, Northwestern played a coverage I'm not sure I've ever seen in a non-prevent situation. They played a three-deep with two CBs and a LB. And then they had two safeties deeper than those guys. It was a pure five-deep. There was NO ONE open beyond 12 yards, and Lewerke wisely threw short of the chains for a gain of 6.
I know some people hate it when the QB throws short of the chains on third down, but that was the wise thing to do there - just like it was wise to throw short of the chains to Rison and Cody White on key plays at the end of the Indiana games, with both guys getting the first down with after-catch yardage.
This time, throwing short of the chains set up fourth-and-three. MSU went for it, and Lewerke completed a pass to Stewart on double-slants to move the chains.
Barry Goldwater ball.
So now it's first-and-10 at the 27.
You can't abandon the run. You're Michigan State and you train all year to be able to get things going on the ground. You have to probe it. There have been times in other games when the run game suddenly starts to hum. It's not like they were getting Alabama-stuffed on run plays.
So on first-and-10, MSU probed a left guard power and only gained 2 yards. I have no problem with that play call beforehand or afterward. MSU tailbacks had 18 carries in this game. Do you really want to come out of this game having attempted only 10 or 12 tailback carries? And if you do attempt only 10 or 12 tailback carries in a game, guess what, those passing lanes aren't as open for Lewerke.
So it's second-and-8. MSU ran a screen pass for Holmes and it lost three yards. A well-drilled defense sniffed that one out.
So it's third-and-11 and Lewerke threw a pass too low for Sokol. He trapped it. INC.
MSU settled for a field goal, and missed.
So the next time MSU regained possession, there was only 4:34 left in the third quarter.
Absolutely none of the above can be considered conservative, predictable or some of the other words I've heard on the Bunker tonight.
**
MSU ran only five more plays in the third quarter.
On first-and-10 at the MSU 20, LJ Scott gained 2 yards on a power to the strong side. Probed the run. No problem, especially since MSU gained the first down on the next play.
Second-and-8: Pass to LJ Scott for 9 on a hitch. MSU went empty for that play.
Then on first and 10, fly sweep, gain of 8.
Now what do you do? And here's the rub, but I see no rub.
It's second-and-2 at the MSU 39-yard line. We're nearly three quarters into this game. Sure, MSU only has 10 points, but I can't argue with MSU's approach to any of it.
You can say MSU should throw the ball here on second-and-two. But remember all the near disasters I outlined.
I'm not sure I've ever heard a time in my life when anyone ever said that a run play on second-and-two was a bad play call.
Until today.
It's second-and-two, and that's actually an ideal time to probe the run in a game like this. There's a chance you get a 5-yard chunk, which just helps establish balance and helps your pass game in the long run. It's an easy choice in my book. It's safe, smart and a good chance of positive returns to run the ball here on second-and-two.
I wish I had been watching this game with you guys in your living rooms on TV. At this point, I would have paused the DVR and asked you for your play choice.
If you said throw the ball, I would have given you a lot of reasons why that wasn't a good idea, and why the run game needed to be fed, and explored.
Even if the play gets stopped, you can expect to at least gain 1 yard, right? And you can come back on third-and-one and pick it up right? Well, that's what MSU thought and that's where the game was lost, in some respects. But I think MSU played the wise percentages.
So MSU ran it, and Scott was stopped for no gain on a power to the weak side.
So it's third-and-2. MSU went back to the QB designed keeper. Again, the QB keeper has been a good play for MSU all year. You have a QB with live legs. You can't run zone read QB keepers 20 times a game. That would put him in harm's way. So you have to be judicious on when you use him in run plays. This was one of those times, and I think percentages were good that he would be able to move the chains.
So they ran a QB power, a type of QB designed run with a pulling guard from the back side that I don't think MSU has run all year. But it got stopped for a gain of 1 and MSU had to punt.
**
So you can claim that you were calling for pass plays on those plays mentioned above, but you know what? I don't believe you. Pass plays didn't make any more sense than run plays in those situations. There was no right or wrong in those situations. MSU chose one way to go with some of those plays. You can argue that other plays might have worked. But you cannot convince me that, prior to the snaps of any of those plays, there would have been a better chance for success with option B as opposed to the choices MSU made on those plays.
**
So I just went through the entire second and third quarter play calls. I've seen people post that MSU got too conservative in the second and third quarter after a fast start.
I don't think the actual minutiae of the situation supports that claim.
