Herbstreit is the best color commentator in college football. He sees more than any other analyst, in my opinion. And he's right-on about MSU stuff almost every time.
But he was wrong when describing msu's "soft man-to-man coverage" that he was so exasperated about during Oregon's drive in the second quarter which eventually ended with the fourth-down stoppage.
There was an out route to the slot WR that went for about 25 yards on this play. He drew it up as man-to-man. But he was wrong. It was MSU's base quarters man-match zone. It played like man-to-man for the CB on the play side. The safety on the play side ended up matching up with the slot WR, loosely. So it looked like man-to-man and played like man-to-man but the assignments weren't man-to-man. If that WR had run a crossing route to the other side of the field, Montae Nicholson wouldn't have went with him. Montae was in zone.
But the "man" coverage LOOKED excessively soft and loose on this play because it attacked MSU's slot area, which is MSU's loose area of the zone to begin with. But the loose area was stretched even wider when Andrew Dowell bit too hard on a zone read run fake. Dowell was in for Darien Harris. Dowell bit and came inside with two or three false steps to play the run (as he is responsible for an interior gap on run plays), yet he is also responsible for getting to the WR to offer the inside portion of an inside-out zone bracket with the safety Nicholson on a route like this.
But Dowell was stretched too far out of position by the run fake. That's the run-pass conflict that the 'star' linebacker is in against offenses like this (see our "crosshairs" pre-game story about Harris, and the question of using freshmen in this key element who have never played before. We saw it come to fruition on this play).
MSU had made wholesale changes one play earlier, when an Oregon play ended on MSU's sideline. That's the perfect time for a "line change." Defenders are near MSU's sideline anyway, having chased the ball over there. Second-stringers are at the ready. The first-stringers tap their helmet and come out, and the second stringers are in and ready for the next snap, about 12 seconds later. That's how it has to be done.
On this occasion, Bullough, Harris, Reschke and some d-linemen tapped out. Dowell, Shane Jones and Chris Frey went in.
I'm thinking Montae Nicholson should have tapped out too, because he missed a tackle on this play, marking the second straight play in which he missed a tackle in space. He didn't tackle well on this drive.
Anyway, Herbstreit was wrong in saying it was man-to-man. It was quarters zone, but the 'star' LB got stretched out of his zone responsibility by a run-pass conflict, essentially leaving Nicholson all alone on the WR, albeit about 8 yards off of him. Not a good combination for MSU.
THE LINGERING QUESTION:
But... can a team beat MSU's defense with the bubbles and slot outs alone? I've not seen it happen much. Maybe Northwestern did it that one year when they were something like 12 of 15 on third downs or something ridiculous vs MSU. But Northwestern sprinkled in some successful run plays that day too. Maybe CMU did it the day they beat MSU. But MSU's defense was in its infancy in those days and unable to stifle the run and truly make offenses one-dimensional. Secondly, MSU in those days hadn't yet evolved into this idea of playing 22 to 25 players on defense, which they believe has become essential in dealing with these offenses.
So can you beat today's MSU on slot-outs and bubbles alone (if you're unable to run and MSU doesn't spring leaks for big plays?) The answer might be no. But MSU needs to stay solvent against big plays in order to make the whole thing work. It would have worked against Baylor, but the big play errors (double pass; deep go route TD; deep seam to the cover-three seam with an error between RJ and DayDay) screwed the construct.
Oregon offensive coordinator Scott Frost said Oregon was having success with the small stuff and going to make MSU "come up" to begin to stop it. At that point, Oregon wanted to go over the top for big plays, he said. Oregon never quite got to that point. Oregon did indeed go over the top for that open WR at the end of the game, but that guy wasn't open due to msu changing the way it was defending the bubble/slot area.
The thing about Oregon and Baylor is that they usually have a field day on the ground against most opponents too, and really get defenses chasing their tail due to the dangerous balance. But MSU has stopped the run vs Baylor and Oregon and basically made them one-dimensional. That's not the end game. But it's a step toward overall containment, something MSU didn't achieve vs Baylor (due to the big play slippage).
As for the Oregon run game, I mentioned the error last night in the Film Room post about MSU failing to fill a gap on the 19-yard run to the 5-yard line.
On this drive, MSU committed another gap error. This time by Reschke. He didn't fill his B-gap on an inside zone to the short side. The play went through his gap and bounced outside for a gain of 15. As the run play developed, coming to his side, Reschke paused and didn't aggressively fill his gap. The offensive guard got out on him and crossed Reschke's face and thereby sealed Reschke from getting to his gap assignment. The RB found the daylight and bounded through.
What's my point? That was a gain of 15 due to an individual mental error more than MSU losing to brute force or pure speed. MSU can correct a 15-yard error like this way easier than a brute force beating or a speed deficiency.
So although Oregon sprang a couple of runs and had decent numbers on the ground, MSU still stopped the run cold for the most part, and had correctable lessons on a small portion of the others. In other words, MSU can stop the run even better vs Oregon than it did last Saturday night. And by the way, that was the best any team has done vs the run vs Oregon since Stanford beat Oregon in 2013 (at least that's what Paul told me tonight).
But he was wrong when describing msu's "soft man-to-man coverage" that he was so exasperated about during Oregon's drive in the second quarter which eventually ended with the fourth-down stoppage.
There was an out route to the slot WR that went for about 25 yards on this play. He drew it up as man-to-man. But he was wrong. It was MSU's base quarters man-match zone. It played like man-to-man for the CB on the play side. The safety on the play side ended up matching up with the slot WR, loosely. So it looked like man-to-man and played like man-to-man but the assignments weren't man-to-man. If that WR had run a crossing route to the other side of the field, Montae Nicholson wouldn't have went with him. Montae was in zone.
But the "man" coverage LOOKED excessively soft and loose on this play because it attacked MSU's slot area, which is MSU's loose area of the zone to begin with. But the loose area was stretched even wider when Andrew Dowell bit too hard on a zone read run fake. Dowell was in for Darien Harris. Dowell bit and came inside with two or three false steps to play the run (as he is responsible for an interior gap on run plays), yet he is also responsible for getting to the WR to offer the inside portion of an inside-out zone bracket with the safety Nicholson on a route like this.
But Dowell was stretched too far out of position by the run fake. That's the run-pass conflict that the 'star' linebacker is in against offenses like this (see our "crosshairs" pre-game story about Harris, and the question of using freshmen in this key element who have never played before. We saw it come to fruition on this play).
MSU had made wholesale changes one play earlier, when an Oregon play ended on MSU's sideline. That's the perfect time for a "line change." Defenders are near MSU's sideline anyway, having chased the ball over there. Second-stringers are at the ready. The first-stringers tap their helmet and come out, and the second stringers are in and ready for the next snap, about 12 seconds later. That's how it has to be done.
On this occasion, Bullough, Harris, Reschke and some d-linemen tapped out. Dowell, Shane Jones and Chris Frey went in.
I'm thinking Montae Nicholson should have tapped out too, because he missed a tackle on this play, marking the second straight play in which he missed a tackle in space. He didn't tackle well on this drive.
Anyway, Herbstreit was wrong in saying it was man-to-man. It was quarters zone, but the 'star' LB got stretched out of his zone responsibility by a run-pass conflict, essentially leaving Nicholson all alone on the WR, albeit about 8 yards off of him. Not a good combination for MSU.
THE LINGERING QUESTION:
But... can a team beat MSU's defense with the bubbles and slot outs alone? I've not seen it happen much. Maybe Northwestern did it that one year when they were something like 12 of 15 on third downs or something ridiculous vs MSU. But Northwestern sprinkled in some successful run plays that day too. Maybe CMU did it the day they beat MSU. But MSU's defense was in its infancy in those days and unable to stifle the run and truly make offenses one-dimensional. Secondly, MSU in those days hadn't yet evolved into this idea of playing 22 to 25 players on defense, which they believe has become essential in dealing with these offenses.
So can you beat today's MSU on slot-outs and bubbles alone (if you're unable to run and MSU doesn't spring leaks for big plays?) The answer might be no. But MSU needs to stay solvent against big plays in order to make the whole thing work. It would have worked against Baylor, but the big play errors (double pass; deep go route TD; deep seam to the cover-three seam with an error between RJ and DayDay) screwed the construct.
Oregon offensive coordinator Scott Frost said Oregon was having success with the small stuff and going to make MSU "come up" to begin to stop it. At that point, Oregon wanted to go over the top for big plays, he said. Oregon never quite got to that point. Oregon did indeed go over the top for that open WR at the end of the game, but that guy wasn't open due to msu changing the way it was defending the bubble/slot area.
The thing about Oregon and Baylor is that they usually have a field day on the ground against most opponents too, and really get defenses chasing their tail due to the dangerous balance. But MSU has stopped the run vs Baylor and Oregon and basically made them one-dimensional. That's not the end game. But it's a step toward overall containment, something MSU didn't achieve vs Baylor (due to the big play slippage).
As for the Oregon run game, I mentioned the error last night in the Film Room post about MSU failing to fill a gap on the 19-yard run to the 5-yard line.
On this drive, MSU committed another gap error. This time by Reschke. He didn't fill his B-gap on an inside zone to the short side. The play went through his gap and bounced outside for a gain of 15. As the run play developed, coming to his side, Reschke paused and didn't aggressively fill his gap. The offensive guard got out on him and crossed Reschke's face and thereby sealed Reschke from getting to his gap assignment. The RB found the daylight and bounded through.
What's my point? That was a gain of 15 due to an individual mental error more than MSU losing to brute force or pure speed. MSU can correct a 15-yard error like this way easier than a brute force beating or a speed deficiency.
So although Oregon sprang a couple of runs and had decent numbers on the ground, MSU still stopped the run cold for the most part, and had correctable lessons on a small portion of the others. In other words, MSU can stop the run even better vs Oregon than it did last Saturday night. And by the way, that was the best any team has done vs the run vs Oregon since Stanford beat Oregon in 2013 (at least that's what Paul told me tonight).
