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.
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.
