I'll put this on the front of the site later. Right now, I have to post it here and go to my kid's birthday dinner:
EAST LANSING - When Conrad Ukropina put his right foot into the ball at the 35-yard line at Stanford Stadium on Thanksgiving Saturday in 2015, there were six teams that had a chance to win the National Championship. Notre Dame and Michigan State were two of them.
Ukropina’s 45-yard field goal was good, giving Stanford a 38-36 victory over No. 4 Notre Dame. Notre Dame was eliminated.
A week later, Michigan State eliminated Iowa to earn a berth in the College Football Playoff.
If the field goal had missed, Notre Dame, not Michigan State, possibly would have ended up being the fourth team in the Playoff.
Twenty-two months ago, Michigan State and Notre Dame were among the elite. Twelve months ago, they played a thrilling back-and-forth game in South Bend with the Spartans coming out on top and a college football nation expecting both programs to continue to throttle through 2016. Instead, both teams endured unspeakably bad seasons.
Now, both teams think they are on the comeback trail - and have each other as measuring sticks. There’s a chance both teams are pretty good right now, and a chance they will stage some good football on Saturday, but the losing team will be frowned upon internally and externally as having sloped downward into pretenderville - fair or not.
Both teams are eager to win and take a major step. But they should also be fearful of what they might find. If Notre Dame gets bounced by 14 points, will the Brian Kelly regime ever recover? If Michigan State gets bounced by 17, will the off-season of “progress” come under serious question? Will the players remain glued together?
Notre Dame lost to a talented Georgia team two weeks ago, 20-19. The loss hurt, but the Irish passed a litmus test. They looked good in a lot of areas.
The Irish look pretty good again, at least for now. One more loss, however, and rumors of hot seats and firings will become a major distraction and another negative avalanche is possible, because it’s hard to continue to improve and stay grounded in that kind of climate.
Teams really do have to continue to improve during the course of a season, something Michigan State failed to do last year. Michigan State truly was a pretty good team the night they beat Notre Dame in 2016.
Many of us want to look back at that game as fool’s gold. I don’t think it was fool’s gold. I think Michigan State - when Riley Bullough and Jon Reschke were right, and before most of the injuries hit, and before team chemistry imploded - was in fact a pretty good team for a short window of time. But a team’s players have to stay glued together, have to keep improving, because the schedule is pretty challenging these days in this racket. They came unglued, lost Bullough and Reschke to injuries, and were just good enough to lose almost every week from that point forward.
Michigan State looks like it is glued together again. The Spartans’ overall talent isn’t quite as good and mature as Notre Dame’s.
Last year, Reschke was the best player on the field when Michigan State played Notre Dame. This year, I expect Irish defensive end Jay Hayes, big No. 93, to be the best player on the field. But defensive end can’t impact every play the way a quarterback can. And MSU’s Brian Lewerke has the potential to be the most important play-producer in this game - and he needs to be in order for the Spartans to make up the slack in other areas and score a major victory.
As badly as Michigan State wants to prove itself this season, as much as the players are hungry to win this game and continue on the comeback trail, Notre Dame probably needs this game more than the Spartans. And Notre Dame has been tested by more difficult opposition to this point, which theoretically helps a team become more aware of its weaknesses and take steps toward fixing them.
Those aspects favor Notre Dame in this game. But there are areas of advantage in which Michigan State can hope to gain disproportionate results and overcome the other shortcomings.
**
By now, you have heard all about Notre Dame’s resurrected running game, and the solid defense the Irish played against Georgia in a last-minute loss.
We’ll touch on that stuff, but try to illustrate other aspects of where the rubber meets the road in this game.
FINAL ANALYSIS FIRST:
* Michigan State is good at defensive tackle. Notre Dame is as good, or better.
* Michigan State has functional defensive ends. Notre Dame is very good at one end (with No. 93 Hayes) and inconsistent at the other end (with No. 9 Daelin Hayes), with pretty good depth. Overall, ND’s defensive end situation is better than MSU’s.
* MSU’s d-line is good. ND’s is a little better.
* MSU’s d-line depth is good. ND’s might be a little better.
* MSU’s inside LBs (Bachie and Frey) are good. ND’s are at least as good.
* MSU’s slot linebacker (Andrew Dowell) is inconsistent. Notre Dame’s (Tranquill) is better.
* MSU’s secondary is functional and improving. ND’s is comparable.
* MSU’s o-line is pretty good, heading in the right direction. ND’s is already there, and better.
* Michigan State has some good, functional tight ends. ND’s are at least as good, probably better.
So if ND has Michigan State covered in all of those areas, where can Michigan State make up the distance?
Quarterback. Quarterback & wide receiver.
MSU’s edge at QB and in the passing game needs to be so pronounced, and so much better than ND’s that it can make up for those other checkmarks that favor ND.
Can MSU’s QB and pass game make up that edge and then some? Perhaps. And I think that’s where this game will be decided.
And if MSU’s QB and pass game plays THAT well, will ND’s pass game remain as stale and pedestrian as it has been? If so, then ND will have trouble winning.
If ND QB Brandon Wimbush finally discovers the 58-reception version of wide receiver Equanimeous St. Brown, and ND suddenly passes for 230 yards and goes from being a 50-percent completion outfit to a 60-completion outfit, then Michigan State will have a very, very tough time winning this game.
This game is an arm’s race. Can Wimbush go from bad to functional? Can Lewerke go from good to quite good, to perhaps very good?
They’re both in their third year in their respective programs. They’re both basically in their first year as starters. Lewerke has been the far better quarterback in a limited body of work. Michigan State needs that edge to become even more pronounced, and it is possible against a questionable ND secondary, a good (not great) ND pass rush.
The door will be open for Lewerke and Michigan State. They need to walk it down.
**
Notre Dame ranks No. 5 in the nation in rushing. They rushed for 400 or more yards against Temple (422) and Boston College (515). That’s sick. But ND rushed for only 55 yards against Georgia.
Was ND that good against Temple and BC, or were the opponents that bad? I think a little bit of the latter.
MSU’s rush defense is good. As good as Georgia’s? No. And it’s a different style. Georgia plays a powerful two-gapping style along the d-line, and I was impressed with the combination of speed, leverage, run support and tackling ability in the back seven for Georgia. Michigan State doesn’t have that kind of speed, quickness and horsepower.
So I wouldn’t expect Michigan State to hold ND to 55 yards rushing like Georgia did.
But I would be flabbergasted if ND rushes for more than 300 yards against Michigan State.
Here’s where the numbers will get critical:
If Michigan State holds Notre Dame to about 155 yards rushing, then ND will have a hard time scoring enough points to win this game IF quarterback Wimbush remains as bad a passer as he has been through the first three games.
If ND rushes for 155 yards, then one or all of these things need to happen for the Irish:
1. Wimbush has to go from bad to functional (at the least) as a passer.
2. Even if Wimbush continues to stink in terms of reads and accuracy, perhaps he can luck up with two or three deep shots pass plays of 50 yards or more to alter the calculus.
3. Game-changing breaks in turnovers and/or special teams.
Now, let’s put the ball in MSU’s court.
IF Wimbush remains highly shaky (and he is shaky as a passer. More on that later). And IF Michigan State limits Notre Dame to less than 160 yards rushing, that doesn’t guarantee that Michigan State will do much better on offense.
That’s where Lewerke comes in.
If Wimbush is shaky, Lewerke has to be better than merely functional. This is the area of potential disproportionate results. If Wimbush is shaky, Lewerke needs to turn this matchup into a 10-8 round, to use a boxing analogy.
Can Lewerke do it? Yes. But can he do it now, in this pressure? We don’t know.
How did ND hang in the game vs Georgia with only 55 yards rushing? Well, Wimbush wasn’t terrible that night. He was 19 of 39 for 211. Six of his 19 completions (for 60 yards) went to the tailback. The longest, a 32-yard wheel route, was thrown poorly and the tailback bailed him out with an excellent catch. Wimbush wasn’t as good as those numbers indicate.
But, Georgia wasn’t much better on offense, having to start a true freshman second-string QB Jake Fromm due to injury to the starter. Fromm was 16 of 29 for 141 yards with 1 TD and 1 INT in a guarded performance.
Michigan State can’t shut down the ND run the way Georgia did. But Michigan State can out-peform Georgia’s passing game - which is exactly what Lewerke and his receivers must do.
Can Wimbush improve rapidly? Well, just a little improvement would be major for ND. They need to achieve offensive balance. Without offensive balance, if Wimbush continues to stink, and if Michigan State truly is a pretty good, balanced team, then the pretty good, balanced team (Michigan State) needs to capitalize on ND’s imbalance by making it that much harder for the ND run game to rule the day. And then when the ball is in the other court, Lewerke needs to come of age. It’s a big boy sport, big boy stage and he’s the guy with the keys, he’s the guy with more arm talent and a better QB mind than Wimbush.
Is Lewerke capable of making a big mistake or two , the kind that can tilt a game like this? Yes. But Wimbush is more likely to make that error.
I’m not predicting that Wimbush will continue to stink. He has a thrower’s chance of hooking up with game-changing plays three or four times. But ND hasn’t let him drop throw on third-and-medium very much this year. It’s clear they don’t trust him, and for good reason. St. Brown, their talented 6-foot-5 receiver, has become visibly frustrated with Wimbush’s inabilty to hook up with him.
If you’re ND and you’re expecting Wimbush to emerge in this game as a positive product, you’re relying on a roll of the dice. I’ve heard ND media say that they’ve seen Wimbush do well in practice, and that better play is coming. That might be true. But I go by body of work rather than trying to time a breakthrough. And right now, his body of work is not good.
But it won’t come down to the Lewerke/Wimbush comparison IF Michigan State can’t contain the ND rushing attack, and it won’t come down to the Lewerke/Wimbush comparison IF Michigan State can’t forge a positive 165-yard (at least) output of its own on the ground.
A closer look at those aspects of the game. But first, some other stuff.
ND results
W: Notre Dame 49, Temple 16.
ND out-gained Temple 606-330
L: Georgia 20, Notre Dame 19
Georgia out-gained ND 326-266
W: Notre Dame 49, Boston College 20
ND out-gained BC 611-400
**
So, how good or bad are Temple and Boston College?
Temple was a bowl team last year but lost its coach to Baylor.
This year, Temple is 2-2. They have two ugly wins over Villanova (16-13) and UMass (29-21). Temple was blown out last night at Top 25 South Florida, 43-7.
Temple is not good. The ND-Temple game isn’t worth watching closely, other than Wimbush’s struggles. Opening night, for a lot of teams, is a spoiled specimen. But Temple is not good, and wasn’t good on that night.
As for Boston College, the Eagles were 7-6 last year and beat Maryland in the Quick Lane Bowl in Detroit.
BC won AT Northern Illinois, 23-20. (NIU beat Nebraska last week).
BC lost at home to Wake Forest, 34-10. (Wake Forest is pretty good. Wake is 3-0 with a win over Utah State, 46-10.
* How bad is BC in run defense? Well, they weren’t bad against Wake Forest. Wake rushed for 158 yards against BC on 52 carries (3.0 yards per carry).
BC allowed 164 yards rushing to Northern Illinois (4.6 per).
Wake never allowed more than 250 yards rushing last year.
BC isn’t bad, but their quality control in run defense was not good last week. When ND had some long run-outs in that game, it was due to some shoddy gap control, not necessarily a big, powerful, unstoppable Wisconsin Badger type of crushing rushing attack. ND was just good, did things right, and BC had some pratfalls, and kind of quit a little bit. That game was tight, well into the third quarter.
Wimbush rushed for 200-plus yards against Boston College. He runs kind of like a tailback. He has good speed, not great speed like Shoestring Robinson or Braxton Miller or Taylor Martinez. He has good speed, like JT Barrett. Maybe a little faster. But he’s bigger than Barrett, harder to bring down, makes good cuts.
He’s a good running QB, but not the type that gives you nightmares the night before a game.
Also, BC played a lot of man-to-man defense. Wimbush’s QB keepers (on counters, designed runs and more than a few scrambles) were the type that got out the gate vs man-to-man but wouldn’t have been as successful against zone (with more defensive eyes on the backfield).
POWER QUOTE:
“I think whatever quarterback is able to start beating the defense with the arm a little more is going to be very important. I feel like I’ve done a decent job of getting up there and now it’s time to put it all together.” - Brian Lewerke,
I couldn’t agree more.
Other Stuff To Know:
* ND has six new coaches this year, including a new o-coordinator Chip Long (from Memphis, and from Arizona State prior to that) and a new d-coordinator Mike Elko (from Wake Forest).
Chip Long was a spread-to-pass guy at Memphis and ASU. But he has adapted to the talent at ND and made ND more of a spread-to-run, power ground team.
ND has a nice array of counters and run plays. They don’t major in two basic ground plays the way Western Michigan did.
And WMU didn’t have a QB who could pull it out and hurt you with the option or the tuck-and-run the way Wimbush can. WMU’s QB could do a little bit of that, but not like this.
Michigan State stopped WMU’s inside and outside zones cold. WMU got outside on a couple of new sweeps.
WMU had good RBs. ND has a little better RBs. Not much better.
WMU had a good o-line. ND has a better o-line.
So this is a challening step-up in weight class for the Michigan State run defense. Not only is ND more talented in those areas, Notre Dame is also MORE VARIED in those areas. They don’t specialize in just one or two base ground concepts like WMU.
ND will pull two backside linemen like the old. Washington NFL counter trey. They will pull both guards like the old Lombardi Packers sweep. And they’ll do that stuff while meshing the read option with it.
They ran the old USC toss sweep “student body left” play (to the short side, of course because ND loves the short side this year, so far. More on that later).
They might pull a back side guard. They might pull a front side guard. They might pull a tackle. They pulled the center once in film that I’ve watched.
And they’ll run the inside zone with strength. And the outside zone with strength. And run mesh read option as part of it.
So it’s varied. They do more than the Nebraska Rex Burkhead teams. And you don’t see much quality control slippage due to the amount of material. Their blockers get on their guys and sustain, and they combo out with quickness and good hand placement.
MSU’s week off helps in that regard. This is a decent amount of material so be versed in.
The fact that Joe Bachie and Chris Frey are addicted to film right now is also a good thing. These increase MSU’s chances of containing ND’s rushing attack to something below 160 yards.
* Michigan State has yet to face a true zone read QB, a perpetual threat to run.
ND will leave the d-end unblocked and option him. * This is the first time that MSU’s new defensive end specialization coaching will come into play against a QB who will option the unblocked defensive end. Michigan State d-ends have been getting twice as much hands-on coaching time this year. Say what you want about Mark Snyder, but there’s a chance MSU’s d-ends will be as well-drilled as possible for the QB reads, with one step, or one inch of shoulder angle making all the difference in correctly squeezing daylight while the QB makes his read.
ND RUN GAME TRENDS & SCHEMES
ND’s run game is still evolving.
* Against BC, the Irish ran more inside zone runs without the read element. Maybe they will continue to go away from the QB read for this game, but Michigan State has to be ready for it anyway.
* Against BC, the Irish ran more counter runs with the QB as the predetermined ball carrier. That stuff was effective, but now it’s on film.
* Wimbush rode the mesh longer better vs BC. He is growing in the run game.
* I have noticed that ND DOES NOT LIKE TO RUN the ball to the long side of the field, to the field. If the ball is on the hash, more than 85 pct of the time, they are running to the short side, or up the middle.
You might think they didn’t want to run to the field against Georgia due to Georgia’s team speed. Maybe. But they didn’t run to the field vs Boston College, either.
(Granted, BC has a great talent in d-end Landry. But Landry played both boundary and field end, if you were wondering).
RUN GAME TRENDS, SCHEMES & ANALYSIS
* ND ran to the field only once in the first quarter against BC, and that was on third-and-17. (Again, not willing to let Wimbush put the ball up on third and long).
* ND ran it to the field only two times in the second quarter:
Once on the first play of the drive, which I think was a purposeful tendency-breaker. (That was on a buck sweep option to the field. That means it’s QB mesh read option with a pulling guard from the back side. Kind of like power read option).
The other was a zone read keep to the field (he had an option to leave it with the RB for an inside run). So that one wasn’t a pure, designed run to the field.
They don’t like to run to the field.
If ND doesn’t change this tendency, then Michigan State’s safeties and linebackers can cheat a half step or a step, which can give a run defense the edge it needs through the course of a game.
Just be aware of this tendency. And if you see ND sending ground plays to the field early in the game on Saturday, you’ll know they’re breaking tendency, and I’ll tweet about it.
In the red zone, QB Wimbush did counter-boot to the field (with three receivers available to him). He kept it for a 3-yard TD.
* ND rushed for 515 yards vs Boston College. (BC never gave up more than 230 yards rushing last year).
OTHER TRAITS: P AND 10 ALERT
* Kelly no longer calls the plays for ND.
But I suspect there is a lot of Brian Kelly involved in the first play of each drive. On those plays, which we call “p and 10” the first first-and-10 of a drive, Notre Dame will mix things up a bit more on that first play of a drive.
Some creative stuff they have done on p-and-10.
They will play action and go deep backside (vs temple).
They went flea flicker vs Georgia on first play of the game.
* Play action throw back sneak route vs Georgia (almost intercepted).
* Went deep to St. Brown vs press on the fourth drive of the game vs Georgia (INC).
* Packers sweep out of a QB mesh read, gain of 10, late in the 1H vs BC.
* RPO bubble screen to St. Brown on p-and-10 with 7:00 left in the 1H vs Boston College. They were trying to get St. Brown involved, because he had been invisible (well not invisible. He had been targeted on some passes, but Wimbush threw inaccurately to him, repeatedly. Most of Brown’s routes were intermediate routes. Wimbush can’t throw those routes. So shortening some of the routes for Brown is necessary to get the ball in his hands more).
NOTRE DAME PERSONNEL
QB Brandon Wimbush (6-2, 228, R-Soph. Teaneck, NJ)
* He had about 30 snaps in 2015. No snaps last year.
* Wimbush was 11 of 24 for 96 yards with 1 INT against Boston College.
* He rushed for 207 yards on 21 carries with four TDs vs Boston College.
* First ND QB ever to rush for 200 yards in a game.
He carried on designed keeps (counters and sweeps and the occasional QB draw), and read options, and tuck-and-run scrambles.
* Wimbush 106 yards rushing vs Temple.
* He is occasionally good throwing the ball, like a young Taylor Martinez. His first play of the year, against Temple, he zipped a bullet on a deep out to the back side of the field. He executed that pass once against Georgia too (to the inside receiver on a deep corner route while the outside receiver cleared the area with a deep go route down the sideline. Hit that play to 86 the tight end for 32 yards against Georgia).
For one or two highlights, he looks good.
But the rest of the time, he has been shaky. He misses high way too often, often with tip drill danger.
What’s the problem? I’m not a QB doctor, but his feet are wrong, which makes him try to generate too much with his arm alone.
Secondly, he is late with throws. He stares down a route, and looks at it and looks at it and throws late, and then too often it’s inaccurate. He rarely goes to a second or third read.
Kelly has been supportive of him publicly. I think Kelly doesn’t want to say what’s really on his mind about this QB and exacerbate the problem. But I might be wrong. These are some insightful quotes from Kelly this week on Wimbush:
“We’ve got a fantastic competitor, a kid with terrific grit and toughness,” Kelly said of Wimbush. “He is going to develop in the passing game. That’s just a matter of time. Through adversity, he is going to keep fighting and our kids love that.”
“I think there is a little bit of inaccuracy there where he is a little rushed at times when he needs to just settle into the game.
“He made a beautiful throw to Smith on a corner route. When he settled into the (Boston College) game I thought he threw the ball much better.
“I feel like we can craft things. We should be able to be smart enough as coaches to figure out what his strengths are at this point and where he is going to develop, moving forward.
“I really didn’t know how this offense was going to be from the quarterback position in terms of where Brandon was going to take it until we got into a few games. Now I think we know what part of the library we need to move towards. We have plenty of offense. Now we can focus on the things he does really well and that’s where this offense will continue to grow and develop.”
**
There’s no question Kelly and Wimbush and they are working on these things. What are the chances the mode of operation improves drastically in time for this game? The odds are against it.
- Mechanically, he gets in a habit of having his feet wrong, leaning back on his back foot, bad mechanics that only Dan Marino can get away with. He did this on a near INT that should have been pick six, inaccurate, and late, late in the 3Q on out route vs Georgia. Throw intended for WR Cam Smith. Smith had to break it up.
* His shortcomings as a passer won’t be a big deal if ND rushes for 250 yards or more.
* Has JT Barrett speed, not quite Braxton Miller or Taylor Martinez speed. He eats up yards, but has size and one-cut, subtle agility that gets him past the first tackler.
Plus plays and minus plays by Wimbush:
+ 2-yard TD run vs Georgia, play action waggle roll, had receivers flowing with him but sprinted to the pylon and showed very good speed in outrunning the Georgia pursuit to the goal line.
+ 10 yard run to the 1-yard line vs BC on a QB counter lead. Mesh with tailback then tailback leads into an interior gap, RT pulls leads off tackle. QB with a nice little move to daylight then physical through the tackle at the goal line.
That’s ND. Varied attack with various pullers and lead blockers and a QB with an improving ability to make the mesh read, and then become hard to tackle.
+ 3-10 vs man to man, dropped back, tuck and run. Reading man to man, he tucked right away, Made a move on CB, out ran the LB, and cut inside to try to break a tackle. This was vs blitz. Gain of 46 yards. Was willing to take on that LB and challenge him to try to tackle him. Has a tailback mentality when he cuts.
+ 1-10 pass third quarter to TE on a corner route, nice agile release move against an OLB, Nod to the corner, nod to the post, back to the corner. Ball in the air for 25 yards. Gain of 33. One of his better passes of the season. Has his moments. Will he have a disproportionate, uncharacteristic number of moments, like Hornibrook of Wisconsin last year?
- Missed dangerously high when rolling to his right. Targeted St. Brown on that one, couldn’t hook it up. (more on the curious case of St. Brown in a moment).
* Fumbled mesh read at his own 33-yard line on opening drive of the 2H last week with a 14-10 lead.
-/+ 1-10, play action half roll TIME to throw but was late with the throw. WR 15 Cam Smith was wide open on an over route. The ball was late, but the play still worked. Thrown at 20 yards, gain of 29.
- 3-3 INC in flat to RB Adams on first drive, didn’t have the touch to get it to him.
- A little late on an out route to TE 86 Alize Mack (slot receiver on this play), near INT vs Temple, second drive.
- inaccurate to St. Brown on 17 yard out to the far side of the field vs Temple.
+ Scramble keep on third and goal TD vs Temple, 14-0.
- missed terribly on first and 10 early in 2q, sprint out, short out route for 15, inc. short hopped it.
- terrible decision on p and 10 early 2q, half roll, throwback, threw it blind, trying to throw it away or just bad? UGA player only one with a chance, near pick six. Ugly pass. The type that causes you to lose confidence in your QB.
+ Kept on a run pass option for a TD keeper vs UGA to go up 10-3
- INT missed St. Brown High on a post during two minute drill last week for tip drill INT.
St. Brown was on one-WR side, which ND likes to do. Put him on one side by himself. Put two or three receivers to the other side. Stretch the defense. Make the safetes make a choice. If they choose to roll a safety more toward St. Brown on the short side of the field, then the the three-receiver combination on the field side will have more open lanes, in theory.
“He has to throw this ball on time,” said color commentator Brian Griese. “And St. Brown took a little too much time getting out of his break.”
ANYTHING SPECIAL?
Does Michigan State have to do anything special against Wimbush?
Not really. Just basic football. TACKLE!
Play the zone read stuff good and honest. Don’t give up too much daylight on the edge gaps.
Be tough vs blocks on the perimeter to set the edge. All the basic stuff that Michigan State is well-schooled to do.
Should Michigan State put a spy on him?
Maybe on third-down situations. Maybe if Michigan State is playing man-to-man on a given play, a spy would be a good idea.
When you use a spy, you’re taking a man out of your coverage. But Wimbush is not a good enough passer to make you pay for being a man down in your secondary.
That makes him as good a candidate to see a spy as any QB.
Michigan State has used spies in the past in passing situations. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s revisited five or six times in a game like this.
So who’s the spy? Well, it’s going to be a guy in the nickel defense. So it might be a guy like Shane Jones on third downs, although he’s not a speed burner.
Maybe Antjuan Simmons, who has seen action in the nickel defense.
Occasionally, in a non-nickel situation, Chris Frey would be a candidate.
* In general, I like MSU’s chances of playing well as the end man on the line of scrimmage against the mesh reads. Play it at the proper angle, make the QB hand it off, and then rely on DT and ILB play to contain the inside run from there.
Sounds good in theory. I think Michigan State has decent pieces to make it work against that part of the ND offense.
The Back-Up QB:
Wimbush went down for one play in the second quarter vs Georgia when he got a little dinged.
Ian Book (6-0, 208, R-Fr., El Dorado Hills, Calif) came in for a drop back, tuck and run on third and long.
Against BC, Book was 0-for-3 in mop up duty. I didn’t see the film of his three throws.
Book was a three-star recruit, ranked the No. 15 pro style QB by Rivals.com, and No. 57 in California.
RUNNING BACKS:
Josh Adams (6-2, 225, Jr., Warrington, Pa.)
* Lethal mixture of size, cutting ability, good acceleration. Good top-end speed. Nimble at his size.
Has rushed for 443 yards (7.9 per attempt) in emerging as one of the top RBs in the nation.
Last year, he rushed for 933 yards.
Rushed for 835 as a freshman in 2015.
He was a three-star recruit, ranked No. 12 in Pennsylvania by Rivals.com, No. 47 RB.
He had 218 yards in the first half against Boston College, 129 of it on two runs.
* Very good receiver. Had a 19-yard catch on a wheel route vs Georgia, hauling in a poorly-thrown pass.
* 37-yard catch and run on a throwback screen vs Georgia, taking it to the 5-yard line. Nice looking play. It was set up by a hard handoff fake to the field.
Stop right there.
A fake to the field?
They don’t like to run to the field.
If it’s hard run action to the field, don’t necessarily over-flow to it. Alert to a throwback.
That’s what this was. The 37-yarder was a key play on a scoring drive.
+ Gain of 60 on a counter sweep. Right guard and right tackle pulling, he cut sharp and hard to daylight, and was hard to tackle as he broke into the secondary.
+ Had a 65-plus yard run as part of a run-pass option, Tevin Coleman style from the Indiana days (an exact Kevin Wilson play that sprang for a 50-plus yard TD vs Michigan State and Taiwon Jones). They stretched the slot LB into a run-pass conflict, the LB faded to the No. 3 WR and the bubble threat, so the QB hands off and Adams jets through the B gap that the LB was supposed to be hosting.
BC was in a quarters zone for that play, very much like MSU’s base defense. But the backside safety wasn’t set at the snap, and had a false step. Michigan State is less likely to have that error.
And the slot LB was skewed too far to the three-WRs. Against this team, play the run first and react out to the pass. BC did the opposite and the RB got out for 60-plus.
Michigan State will prepare for this play. I suspect they will be okay against it. They’ve seen it before as coaches, and will have a philosophy.
* On another Adams 60-plus yarder, the end man on the line of scrimmage didn’t squeeze the outside gap tight enough, played the QB keeper too much. The handoff jetted up the middle and that end man on the line of scrimmage tried to dive inside to get him, but missed the tackle.
This wasn’t dominant blocking. It was just a good running outfit taking advantage of some shaky gap integrity.
“We got back to running hard and breaking through some tackles (Against BC),” Kelly said. “He wasn’t hesitating in the hole.”
Kelly said ND running backs tried to be too fine too much against Georgia, tried to finesse their way to long runs too foten rather than just hitting it hard and taking what was there. Said they did it better, more aggressively vs BC.
+ On another long run, RG and RT double-teamed the d-tackle and moved him two yards off the ball. Too much daylight, and the BC middle linebacker wasn’t in his correct gap.
(This type of play is much less likely to break and get out vs Michigan State. MSU’s d-tackles have been good at taking on double-teams. Will they remain that way against this o-line? Yes, because Panasiuk and Raequan Williams were good vs the double-teams of Ohio State last November, and that’s when they were freshmen. They’ve been good this year, they should be fine against these double teams. And MSU’s MLB hasn’t made a gap error that I’ve seen all year).
RB 2 DEXTER WILLIAMS (5-11, 215, Jr., Winter Garden, Fla.)
* He doesn’t get a lot of work. Has only 12 carries this year, 174 yards (that 14.5 yards per carry).
He has three TDs, including a 66-yarder.
* Against Temple, Adams rushed for 161, back-up RB Dexter Williams rushed for 124, Wimbush rushed for 106.
WIDE RECEIVERS:
* Good talent here, but Wimbush is having trouble hooking up with them.
EQUANIMEOUS ST. BROWN (6-5, 203, Jr., Anaheim, Calif.)
* Scary talent. Was a four-star recruit, ranked No. 144 in the nation and No. 23 in California.
STAT OF THE DAY: He had 58 catches for 961 yards and nine TDs last year.
This year, he has only 7 catches, one TD.
Seven catches? He’s on pace for only 28 on the year.
He’s running good routes. He’s still himself.
But Wimbush is flat out missing him. He’s targeting him, trying to throw to him, but is missing high.
St. Brown is getting frustrated.
But there is potential here for ND. If Wimbush can get dialed in with St. Brown, this becomes a Top 20 type of team.
This is a huge x-factor for this game. This offense becomes balanced and dangerous if Wimbush is able to pass to St. Brown five or six times in a game.
* Kelly, like a lot of coaches, likes to challenge press coverage with the deep shot - especially on the first play of a possession.
ND will do that for St. Brown at least once. They’ll put him on the short side of the field do it.
If you’re Michigan State, which CB do you put on him to the short side? Justin Layne is a better size matchup. Josiah Scott has better feet. You’ll find out when I find out.
All Michigan State CBs play boundary CB and field CB. They can mix and match it however they want. Their choice will be interesting. I’m guessing Scott, to begin with.
I could list six times when St. Brown was targeted in the last two games and Wimbush missed him, but I’ll spare you the details.
Wimbush did find him on a slant for a gain of 8 on a third-and-six vs Georgia, but it was thrown high too, very high, and hard and difficult to catch, but St. Brown caught that one.
* St. Brown leads ND wide receivers in catches with seven on the year.
Tight end Alize Mack leads the team in catchees with nine.
Adams, the RB, is second with eight.
The other wide receivers haven’t been much to write about:
WR CAMERON SMITH
* 6 catches, 55 yards.
10 WR CHRIS FINKE (5-9, 181, R-Soph., Kettering, Ohio, Bishop Alter)
* 3 catches, 36 yards
* Punt returner. He didn’t do much as a punt return in the last two games.
83 WR CHASE CLAYPOOL (6-4, 228, Soph., Abbotsford, British Columbia)
* 3 catches, 24 yards
WR FREDDY CANTEEN
* 1 catch, 7 yards, transfer from Michigan
* Tight ends are athletic route runners, can fake a block and slip downfield and get vertical quickly, threaten the two-deep seam, but QB might not get it to them for one reason or another.
86 TE ALIZE MACK (6-5, 251, R-Soph., Las Vegas).
* Looks good, plays good.
* Solid possesion route guy, and also gets downfield for the corner route to the left side of the field (I haven’t seen Wimbush make that throw to the rigth).
* Mack led ND in receiving vs Boston College with five catches.
They like the tight end on a H-back route, coming across the formation on the negative side of the line of scrimmage for a short, easy pass out to the flat. They haven’t done much damage with this, although they run it a lot.
+ Waggle roll on p and 10 early in 2q. Gain of about 15.
- Dropped pass on 1-10 third quarter vs UGA. Looking deep for St. Brown on a double move, not there, check down to TE on delayed out route, dropped it.
80 TE DURHAM SMYTHE (6-5, 257, Sr., Tinley Park, Ill)
* Had 12 catches last year.
* 3 catches this year.
* A plus blocker.
+ Quick as blocker, blocking down on a linemen, then quick and agile feet to get out to a LB, as shown early in the Georgia game.
+ Down block, then out to cut a safety on a counter to his side vs UGA. ND guys stay on their blocks, stay busy in their blocking two, three, four beats into a play.
OFFENSIVE LINE:
* Good o-line.
* NFL player at LT, All-American.
* All-American candidate at LG.
* Center is good.
* RG is quite good.
* RT they have had some competition there and some false starts from the back-up.
But I’ve watched two-and-a-half games pretty closely and I have seen very, very, very few missed blocks.
Are these guys destroyers? No. They’re good, they play well together, double-team well together, climb out to the LB level for combo blocks on time and sharply.
Pass protection has been good for the most part although the LT got beat for a couple of sacks against Georgia, including one that resulted in a fumble in the last two minutes, ending ND’s chances.
The o-line kept d-end Landry of Boston College pretty quiet. Landry led the nation in sacks last year.
DEFENSE
(Okay, I need to finish this and get to my son’s birthday dinner. So let’s get quicker with the info):
DEFENSIVE LINE:
* Excellent at d-end with 93 JAY HAYES (6-4, 290, R-Jr., Brooklyn, NY).
With that size, it’s difficult to win the edge to his side. TEs will have a hard time blocking him.
He’s quick and fast enough to pursue well from the back side.
How will he do when left unblocked and optioned? We’ll find out. That size could work against him a little bit vs zone read option, although Michigan State doesn’t run it all that much.
The other DE, DAELIN HAYES (6-4, 258, Soph., Belleville, Mich./Ann Arbor Skyline)
He starts as a stand-up end, “drop” end.
He makes some loud, athletic plays once in awhile. But down-in, and down-out, he has his limitations.
He was ranked No. 1 in the state by Rivals.com two years ago.
Hayes has had some problems at the point of attack vs the run. Georgia tight end put him on skates and erased him to the sideline for a 30-yard run by RB Chubb early in the game.
Georgia made a point to run right at No. 9 Hayes on the first drive of the 2H.
I would look for Michigan State to do the same.
Why run toward 93’s side when you can run toward No. 9’s side?
Keep an eye on that.
No. 9 has made a little bit of noise in the pass rush, but I like Brandon Randle’s take-off and counter moves better.
* The defensive tackles are quite good. 99 and 55, Tillery and Bonner. Good, good. Both are Raequan Williams types, but Tillery is taller.
99 Tillery (6-7, 306, Jr., Shreveport, La.) overran an outside zone once against BC, and the RB cut it back for a good gain. But 99 is an NFL player.
55 Bonner (6-4, 292, R-Jr., Chesterfield, Mo.) is quality.
Back-up No. 95 Myron Tagovailoa-Amosa (6-2, 293, Fr., Ewa Beach, Hi.) came off the bench for a turning point play on a fourth-and-one stoppage against BC. He destroyed the left guard on an inside zone. At times like this when they bring a guy off the bench who makes a play like that, they still look like Old Notre Dame.
* 41 (Kurt Hinish, 6-2, 290, Fr., Pittsburgh), back-up DT, has gotten beaten back a a couple of times. Not as good against double teams.
* 42 Julian Okwara (6-4, 240, Soph., Charlotte NC) designated pass rusher. Had a sack vs. Temple. Not bad. Not scary good.
LINEBACKERS:
Drue Tranquill (6-2, 231, R-Jr., Fort Wayne) quick contact player. Plays in the slot. Plays fast and smart.
He plays a little like Chris Frey, but in the slot.
I didn’t expect Tranquill to be as good a hitter as he’s become. I thought he was kind of a pretty boy on the camp circuit. Michigan State looked at him, didn’t offer. He’s proved himself. Quick, quality college player.
MLB 5 NYLES MORGAN (6-1, 235, Sr., Crete, Ill.) is mostly a good, thumping inside LB.
+ Good hard hit as the second man in to cause a fumble vs BC on an inside run (BC recovered). Plays with a physical, quick tilt.
* I’m not sure about the third LB position. 48 Greer Martini (6-4, 235, Sr., Cary, NC) is the starter but was on the bench a lot last week.
+ Good job playing the outside zone to his side, took on pulling lineman, rip and shed to win the edge for ILB to pursue and make the tackle late in the first half. But I haven’t seen much more out of him.
* Martini’s back-up, No. 4, Te’Von Coney, is athletic but makes mistakes. Coney (6-1, 240, Jr. Palm Beach, Fla.). He makes some loud plays, does some good things. But overpursued an off-tackle run to the short side in the 2Q vs BC and was partly responsible for the RB cutting back and going 28 yards.
Coney played MLB on that play and over-pursued, didn’t aim for the cut back hip, got too far out in front.
- Very next play: Coney was in the wrong gap on a 9-yard burst on an inside zone, the best ground flurry by BC all day - both with Coney responsible.
- RB plowed over him for four yards on third-and-2 in the 2q vs BC. If he makes a tough hit, they can stop him short of the first down.
+ Vs Ga, he executed a strong two hand shiver to get off a block, made a tackle on an outside zone to his side, gain of 2. Nice play. I could list four or five other impressive plays I’ve seen from him. Lots of potential, needs to eliminate the errors.
PASS DEFENSE:
* They’ll mix zone and man-to-man, like Michigan State. They aren’t a heavy blitz team. Their coverages are functional, not great. Nothing to be afraid of. Lewerke should be able to execute against these guys.
* Their safeties were a preseason question mark.
* I don’t have much of a read on their DBs because they haven’t yet faced a good passing attack. Georgia’s QB was a true frosh. BC’s quarterback was a redshirt frosh, and he wasn’t any good.
Their situation is similar to MSU’s defensive backs. So far, not bad, but largely untested.
* 20 CB SEAN CRAWFORD has been beaten deep a couple of times but QBs haven’t been able to complete the hook-up.
20 CB SEAN CRAWFORD
+covered 4 Hardman of Georgia deep in the second quarter on a go route on third and long. WR might have had a half step on him. Wasn’t burned.
= Tested deep on third and 8 in 2q vs BC. Was beaten by a step but QB overthrew him.
+ Had a hand in three turnovers vs BC.
* Missed the last two seasons.
+ INT on third-and-seven deep fade. Covered him well, turned back for the ball in man-to-man, secured the INT.
- Beaten deep on a post by GA late in the 3Q at the 10-yard line. Dropped. Should have been an easy TD. Punted two plays later .
27 CB JULIAN LOVE (5-11, 193, Soph., Westchester, Ill.)
* Their most questionable corner.
- Beaten on 22 yard post to Boston College TE, off of play action. Love wasn’t physical with him, couldn’t close late. Very good pass, very good catch high.
+ Excellent pass break-up on an out route in the third quarter vs BC.
* Beaten on corner fade for 5-yard TD vs UGA, but covered it pretty well, leaping 1-handed catch.
+ Good coverage deep vs WR Tyler Simmons of UGA in the third quarter, INC.
- Beaten on a double move off the release, open by a yard, QB missed him, late 3Q.
24 S NICK COLEMAN
+ Great read and quick burst, scraping to the backfield to stop Wildcat QB for no gain on third-and-2 inthe first quarter.
* Hurt his shoulder while making a tackle in the second quarter against Boston College, maybe his collar bone.
+ Solid tackler on run play right at him in the 2q last week.
7 CB NICK WATKINS (6-1, 207, Jr, DeSoto, Tx)
- Failed to finish a tackle in off coverage on third-and-10 in the first quarter vs BC, allowing a first down in the red zone.
* Left CB, short side CB
+ Good tackle on 3-7 out in third quarter vs BC.
- Beaten deep on go route by UGA in the first quarter for about 40 yards, but it looked like an accidental back shoulder pass. Beaten by about a yard by No. 5.
* short side left CB
- Beaten by deep back shoulder, off coverage, good catch good ball gave UGA first and 10 at the 16 with 5:15 to play.
SPECIAL TEAMS
* I haven’t studied their special teams closely, but their return game didn’t raise any eyebrows in the first three games.
ON THE MUST LIST:
* Michigan State slot LB Andrew Dowell MUST tackle better. He missed a couple last week. He needs to arrive on-time, correctly, with force and efficiently. ND will put guys in space and test Dowell’s tackling.
* Michigan State needs to establish a ground component of its offense. We’ve spent so much time talking about ND’s run game. What about MSU’s run game? It’s been a little late to the party this year.
Can Michigan State run the ball against this quality ND defensive front?
They should be able to. Boston College rushed for 185.
THE TO-DO LIST:
Run it at No. 9 Hayes.
Also, ND had some problems with cutbacks vs. the outside zone. They had problems with overpursuit from DL No 99 and LB No. 4.
Run the outside zone, look for cutback daylight.
SOME FINAL THOUGHTS
Michigan State in theory is the more balanced team. if Michigan State achieves balance and prevents ND from being balanced, and doen’t let ND pop off for 210 or more yards, then Michigan State, as the more balanced team, SHOULD win.
If ND’s pass game doesn’t achieve a level of balance, then Michigan State should be able to use that against ND to further skew things toward run support, and make it that much more difficult for ND’s strength (its running attack) to rule the day.
Of course, Michigan State needs to achieve balance of its own. That’s not a given.
In the end, Michigan State figures to be the more balnced team (thus far) and is playing at home. ND is more battle-tested. That’s a big deal because ND might be better than it looks, and Michigan State might not be as good as it looks, just because of the quality of opposition each team has faced.
Things That make me pause:
wimbush looks good like one out of every eight or nine passes. can he come in here and put on a JT barrett display? No way in hell. Can he do like Alex Hornibrook of Wisconsin last year. No. But that was some voodoo stuff that Hornibook did last year. He was flat out perfect against Michigan State and hasn’t come close to anything like that, since. And the coverage wasn’t that bad. He was just crazy-perfect.
As long as Michigan State isn’t in debt to the football devil, I wouldn’t expect the Spartans to have that tpe of Twilight Zone experence with Wimbush.
* ND went for 600-plus yards in two of its three games. I usually overrate ND at this time of year. But there’s a chance I’m underrating them and underrating what 600 yards of offense means, regardless of the opponent.
As I said in the V-Cast on Tuesday, I made the mistake of underrating the Nebraska rush offense back in the Rex Burkhead/Taylor Martinez days, thinking MSU’s heavyweight run defense would hold Nebraska to well below its averages. But I was wrong. Nebraska kept swinging, kept swinging, got into its tempo, fatigued the Michigan State defense, and put up its rush game numbers a few times against Michigan State.
Those were better Michigan State defenses in those days. This year’s defense isn’t as good as those, HOWEVER the Spartans are more equipped and trained (via more use of reserves) to at least handle the fatigue factor. Tempo-based ground offense was a brand new thing back when Nebraska tapped out Michigan State a couple of times. Michigan State has a better construct on that stuff now, and they’re waiting for their new defensive personnel to mature and grow up in other areas.
ADD IT ALL UP
I think Michigan State holds ND to less than 175 yards rushing. That might not sound great it isn’t. But it puts ND right in the category of critical mass. That might not be enough on the ground to win, without help from the passing attack.
Can Wimbush find four or five intermediate or downfield passes to provide just enough balance? He was bad last week. Stunk out loud. On third-and-medium or third-and-long, EVER pass was short and controlled. They don’t trust him.
Who is more likely to make the big mistake? Lewerke or Wimbush? I think Wimbush.
I think Michigan State has run some good route combinations and concepts this year against questionable opponents, but WMU’s defensive backfield was good. Michigan State needed to be sharp against those guys, and Lewerke adjusted away from Dairus Phillips.
MSU’s ground game is a question mark. I would be more comfortable in picking Michigan State if MSU’s ground game had been punishing people this year. But that hasn’t been the case. HOWEVER, MSU’s ground game has been known to go from pedestrian to awesome overnight in the Dantonio era. They could use some of that magic right now, and they probably need it.
So which area is more likely to come through on Saturday? MSU’s ground game or Wimbush’s passing game? Again, I go with Michigan State ground game on that one.
Which defensive backfield is most likely to stink up the joint? Call that one even.
Add it all up, and I think these are the most likely scenarios:
MSU’s run defense isn’t good enough to stop ND’s ground attack cold? But good enough to contain it to 170 yards or less.
Wimbush might continue to miss high on everyone, and hold the ball too long, and his tuck-and-runs won’t be as effective. But he’ll clip off two or three nice passes, and if he avoids the big mistake, that’ll be a big plus for ND.
Will Lewerke become Kirk Cousins right now? Probably not. But I think he’ll do enough to give Michigan State the edge in the passing game it needs.
But these scenarios are not decisive. That means the game will likely hang in the balance for the big error, the big turnover, the big special teams play, the big fake field goal.
You can flip a coin on this one. I will lean toward the home team with the more composed quarterback, and blossoming receivers, and an overdue running attack, an underrated ground defense.
EAST LANSING - When Conrad Ukropina put his right foot into the ball at the 35-yard line at Stanford Stadium on Thanksgiving Saturday in 2015, there were six teams that had a chance to win the National Championship. Notre Dame and Michigan State were two of them.
Ukropina’s 45-yard field goal was good, giving Stanford a 38-36 victory over No. 4 Notre Dame. Notre Dame was eliminated.
A week later, Michigan State eliminated Iowa to earn a berth in the College Football Playoff.
If the field goal had missed, Notre Dame, not Michigan State, possibly would have ended up being the fourth team in the Playoff.
Twenty-two months ago, Michigan State and Notre Dame were among the elite. Twelve months ago, they played a thrilling back-and-forth game in South Bend with the Spartans coming out on top and a college football nation expecting both programs to continue to throttle through 2016. Instead, both teams endured unspeakably bad seasons.
Now, both teams think they are on the comeback trail - and have each other as measuring sticks. There’s a chance both teams are pretty good right now, and a chance they will stage some good football on Saturday, but the losing team will be frowned upon internally and externally as having sloped downward into pretenderville - fair or not.
Both teams are eager to win and take a major step. But they should also be fearful of what they might find. If Notre Dame gets bounced by 14 points, will the Brian Kelly regime ever recover? If Michigan State gets bounced by 17, will the off-season of “progress” come under serious question? Will the players remain glued together?
Notre Dame lost to a talented Georgia team two weeks ago, 20-19. The loss hurt, but the Irish passed a litmus test. They looked good in a lot of areas.
The Irish look pretty good again, at least for now. One more loss, however, and rumors of hot seats and firings will become a major distraction and another negative avalanche is possible, because it’s hard to continue to improve and stay grounded in that kind of climate.
Teams really do have to continue to improve during the course of a season, something Michigan State failed to do last year. Michigan State truly was a pretty good team the night they beat Notre Dame in 2016.
Many of us want to look back at that game as fool’s gold. I don’t think it was fool’s gold. I think Michigan State - when Riley Bullough and Jon Reschke were right, and before most of the injuries hit, and before team chemistry imploded - was in fact a pretty good team for a short window of time. But a team’s players have to stay glued together, have to keep improving, because the schedule is pretty challenging these days in this racket. They came unglued, lost Bullough and Reschke to injuries, and were just good enough to lose almost every week from that point forward.
Michigan State looks like it is glued together again. The Spartans’ overall talent isn’t quite as good and mature as Notre Dame’s.
Last year, Reschke was the best player on the field when Michigan State played Notre Dame. This year, I expect Irish defensive end Jay Hayes, big No. 93, to be the best player on the field. But defensive end can’t impact every play the way a quarterback can. And MSU’s Brian Lewerke has the potential to be the most important play-producer in this game - and he needs to be in order for the Spartans to make up the slack in other areas and score a major victory.
As badly as Michigan State wants to prove itself this season, as much as the players are hungry to win this game and continue on the comeback trail, Notre Dame probably needs this game more than the Spartans. And Notre Dame has been tested by more difficult opposition to this point, which theoretically helps a team become more aware of its weaknesses and take steps toward fixing them.
Those aspects favor Notre Dame in this game. But there are areas of advantage in which Michigan State can hope to gain disproportionate results and overcome the other shortcomings.
**
By now, you have heard all about Notre Dame’s resurrected running game, and the solid defense the Irish played against Georgia in a last-minute loss.
We’ll touch on that stuff, but try to illustrate other aspects of where the rubber meets the road in this game.
FINAL ANALYSIS FIRST:
* Michigan State is good at defensive tackle. Notre Dame is as good, or better.
* Michigan State has functional defensive ends. Notre Dame is very good at one end (with No. 93 Hayes) and inconsistent at the other end (with No. 9 Daelin Hayes), with pretty good depth. Overall, ND’s defensive end situation is better than MSU’s.
* MSU’s d-line is good. ND’s is a little better.
* MSU’s d-line depth is good. ND’s might be a little better.
* MSU’s inside LBs (Bachie and Frey) are good. ND’s are at least as good.
* MSU’s slot linebacker (Andrew Dowell) is inconsistent. Notre Dame’s (Tranquill) is better.
* MSU’s secondary is functional and improving. ND’s is comparable.
* MSU’s o-line is pretty good, heading in the right direction. ND’s is already there, and better.
* Michigan State has some good, functional tight ends. ND’s are at least as good, probably better.
So if ND has Michigan State covered in all of those areas, where can Michigan State make up the distance?
Quarterback. Quarterback & wide receiver.
MSU’s edge at QB and in the passing game needs to be so pronounced, and so much better than ND’s that it can make up for those other checkmarks that favor ND.
Can MSU’s QB and pass game make up that edge and then some? Perhaps. And I think that’s where this game will be decided.
And if MSU’s QB and pass game plays THAT well, will ND’s pass game remain as stale and pedestrian as it has been? If so, then ND will have trouble winning.
If ND QB Brandon Wimbush finally discovers the 58-reception version of wide receiver Equanimeous St. Brown, and ND suddenly passes for 230 yards and goes from being a 50-percent completion outfit to a 60-completion outfit, then Michigan State will have a very, very tough time winning this game.
This game is an arm’s race. Can Wimbush go from bad to functional? Can Lewerke go from good to quite good, to perhaps very good?
They’re both in their third year in their respective programs. They’re both basically in their first year as starters. Lewerke has been the far better quarterback in a limited body of work. Michigan State needs that edge to become even more pronounced, and it is possible against a questionable ND secondary, a good (not great) ND pass rush.
The door will be open for Lewerke and Michigan State. They need to walk it down.
**
Notre Dame ranks No. 5 in the nation in rushing. They rushed for 400 or more yards against Temple (422) and Boston College (515). That’s sick. But ND rushed for only 55 yards against Georgia.
Was ND that good against Temple and BC, or were the opponents that bad? I think a little bit of the latter.
MSU’s rush defense is good. As good as Georgia’s? No. And it’s a different style. Georgia plays a powerful two-gapping style along the d-line, and I was impressed with the combination of speed, leverage, run support and tackling ability in the back seven for Georgia. Michigan State doesn’t have that kind of speed, quickness and horsepower.
So I wouldn’t expect Michigan State to hold ND to 55 yards rushing like Georgia did.
But I would be flabbergasted if ND rushes for more than 300 yards against Michigan State.
Here’s where the numbers will get critical:
If Michigan State holds Notre Dame to about 155 yards rushing, then ND will have a hard time scoring enough points to win this game IF quarterback Wimbush remains as bad a passer as he has been through the first three games.
If ND rushes for 155 yards, then one or all of these things need to happen for the Irish:
1. Wimbush has to go from bad to functional (at the least) as a passer.
2. Even if Wimbush continues to stink in terms of reads and accuracy, perhaps he can luck up with two or three deep shots pass plays of 50 yards or more to alter the calculus.
3. Game-changing breaks in turnovers and/or special teams.
Now, let’s put the ball in MSU’s court.
IF Wimbush remains highly shaky (and he is shaky as a passer. More on that later). And IF Michigan State limits Notre Dame to less than 160 yards rushing, that doesn’t guarantee that Michigan State will do much better on offense.
That’s where Lewerke comes in.
If Wimbush is shaky, Lewerke has to be better than merely functional. This is the area of potential disproportionate results. If Wimbush is shaky, Lewerke needs to turn this matchup into a 10-8 round, to use a boxing analogy.
Can Lewerke do it? Yes. But can he do it now, in this pressure? We don’t know.
How did ND hang in the game vs Georgia with only 55 yards rushing? Well, Wimbush wasn’t terrible that night. He was 19 of 39 for 211. Six of his 19 completions (for 60 yards) went to the tailback. The longest, a 32-yard wheel route, was thrown poorly and the tailback bailed him out with an excellent catch. Wimbush wasn’t as good as those numbers indicate.
But, Georgia wasn’t much better on offense, having to start a true freshman second-string QB Jake Fromm due to injury to the starter. Fromm was 16 of 29 for 141 yards with 1 TD and 1 INT in a guarded performance.
Michigan State can’t shut down the ND run the way Georgia did. But Michigan State can out-peform Georgia’s passing game - which is exactly what Lewerke and his receivers must do.
Can Wimbush improve rapidly? Well, just a little improvement would be major for ND. They need to achieve offensive balance. Without offensive balance, if Wimbush continues to stink, and if Michigan State truly is a pretty good, balanced team, then the pretty good, balanced team (Michigan State) needs to capitalize on ND’s imbalance by making it that much harder for the ND run game to rule the day. And then when the ball is in the other court, Lewerke needs to come of age. It’s a big boy sport, big boy stage and he’s the guy with the keys, he’s the guy with more arm talent and a better QB mind than Wimbush.
Is Lewerke capable of making a big mistake or two , the kind that can tilt a game like this? Yes. But Wimbush is more likely to make that error.
I’m not predicting that Wimbush will continue to stink. He has a thrower’s chance of hooking up with game-changing plays three or four times. But ND hasn’t let him drop throw on third-and-medium very much this year. It’s clear they don’t trust him, and for good reason. St. Brown, their talented 6-foot-5 receiver, has become visibly frustrated with Wimbush’s inabilty to hook up with him.
If you’re ND and you’re expecting Wimbush to emerge in this game as a positive product, you’re relying on a roll of the dice. I’ve heard ND media say that they’ve seen Wimbush do well in practice, and that better play is coming. That might be true. But I go by body of work rather than trying to time a breakthrough. And right now, his body of work is not good.
But it won’t come down to the Lewerke/Wimbush comparison IF Michigan State can’t contain the ND rushing attack, and it won’t come down to the Lewerke/Wimbush comparison IF Michigan State can’t forge a positive 165-yard (at least) output of its own on the ground.
A closer look at those aspects of the game. But first, some other stuff.
ND results
W: Notre Dame 49, Temple 16.
ND out-gained Temple 606-330
L: Georgia 20, Notre Dame 19
Georgia out-gained ND 326-266
W: Notre Dame 49, Boston College 20
ND out-gained BC 611-400
**
So, how good or bad are Temple and Boston College?
Temple was a bowl team last year but lost its coach to Baylor.
This year, Temple is 2-2. They have two ugly wins over Villanova (16-13) and UMass (29-21). Temple was blown out last night at Top 25 South Florida, 43-7.
Temple is not good. The ND-Temple game isn’t worth watching closely, other than Wimbush’s struggles. Opening night, for a lot of teams, is a spoiled specimen. But Temple is not good, and wasn’t good on that night.
As for Boston College, the Eagles were 7-6 last year and beat Maryland in the Quick Lane Bowl in Detroit.
BC won AT Northern Illinois, 23-20. (NIU beat Nebraska last week).
BC lost at home to Wake Forest, 34-10. (Wake Forest is pretty good. Wake is 3-0 with a win over Utah State, 46-10.
* How bad is BC in run defense? Well, they weren’t bad against Wake Forest. Wake rushed for 158 yards against BC on 52 carries (3.0 yards per carry).
BC allowed 164 yards rushing to Northern Illinois (4.6 per).
Wake never allowed more than 250 yards rushing last year.
BC isn’t bad, but their quality control in run defense was not good last week. When ND had some long run-outs in that game, it was due to some shoddy gap control, not necessarily a big, powerful, unstoppable Wisconsin Badger type of crushing rushing attack. ND was just good, did things right, and BC had some pratfalls, and kind of quit a little bit. That game was tight, well into the third quarter.
Wimbush rushed for 200-plus yards against Boston College. He runs kind of like a tailback. He has good speed, not great speed like Shoestring Robinson or Braxton Miller or Taylor Martinez. He has good speed, like JT Barrett. Maybe a little faster. But he’s bigger than Barrett, harder to bring down, makes good cuts.
He’s a good running QB, but not the type that gives you nightmares the night before a game.
Also, BC played a lot of man-to-man defense. Wimbush’s QB keepers (on counters, designed runs and more than a few scrambles) were the type that got out the gate vs man-to-man but wouldn’t have been as successful against zone (with more defensive eyes on the backfield).
POWER QUOTE:
“I think whatever quarterback is able to start beating the defense with the arm a little more is going to be very important. I feel like I’ve done a decent job of getting up there and now it’s time to put it all together.” - Brian Lewerke,
I couldn’t agree more.
Other Stuff To Know:
* ND has six new coaches this year, including a new o-coordinator Chip Long (from Memphis, and from Arizona State prior to that) and a new d-coordinator Mike Elko (from Wake Forest).
Chip Long was a spread-to-pass guy at Memphis and ASU. But he has adapted to the talent at ND and made ND more of a spread-to-run, power ground team.
ND has a nice array of counters and run plays. They don’t major in two basic ground plays the way Western Michigan did.
And WMU didn’t have a QB who could pull it out and hurt you with the option or the tuck-and-run the way Wimbush can. WMU’s QB could do a little bit of that, but not like this.
Michigan State stopped WMU’s inside and outside zones cold. WMU got outside on a couple of new sweeps.
WMU had good RBs. ND has a little better RBs. Not much better.
WMU had a good o-line. ND has a better o-line.
So this is a challening step-up in weight class for the Michigan State run defense. Not only is ND more talented in those areas, Notre Dame is also MORE VARIED in those areas. They don’t specialize in just one or two base ground concepts like WMU.
ND will pull two backside linemen like the old. Washington NFL counter trey. They will pull both guards like the old Lombardi Packers sweep. And they’ll do that stuff while meshing the read option with it.
They ran the old USC toss sweep “student body left” play (to the short side, of course because ND loves the short side this year, so far. More on that later).
They might pull a back side guard. They might pull a front side guard. They might pull a tackle. They pulled the center once in film that I’ve watched.
And they’ll run the inside zone with strength. And the outside zone with strength. And run mesh read option as part of it.
So it’s varied. They do more than the Nebraska Rex Burkhead teams. And you don’t see much quality control slippage due to the amount of material. Their blockers get on their guys and sustain, and they combo out with quickness and good hand placement.
MSU’s week off helps in that regard. This is a decent amount of material so be versed in.
The fact that Joe Bachie and Chris Frey are addicted to film right now is also a good thing. These increase MSU’s chances of containing ND’s rushing attack to something below 160 yards.
* Michigan State has yet to face a true zone read QB, a perpetual threat to run.
ND will leave the d-end unblocked and option him. * This is the first time that MSU’s new defensive end specialization coaching will come into play against a QB who will option the unblocked defensive end. Michigan State d-ends have been getting twice as much hands-on coaching time this year. Say what you want about Mark Snyder, but there’s a chance MSU’s d-ends will be as well-drilled as possible for the QB reads, with one step, or one inch of shoulder angle making all the difference in correctly squeezing daylight while the QB makes his read.
ND RUN GAME TRENDS & SCHEMES
ND’s run game is still evolving.
* Against BC, the Irish ran more inside zone runs without the read element. Maybe they will continue to go away from the QB read for this game, but Michigan State has to be ready for it anyway.
* Against BC, the Irish ran more counter runs with the QB as the predetermined ball carrier. That stuff was effective, but now it’s on film.
* Wimbush rode the mesh longer better vs BC. He is growing in the run game.
* I have noticed that ND DOES NOT LIKE TO RUN the ball to the long side of the field, to the field. If the ball is on the hash, more than 85 pct of the time, they are running to the short side, or up the middle.
You might think they didn’t want to run to the field against Georgia due to Georgia’s team speed. Maybe. But they didn’t run to the field vs Boston College, either.
(Granted, BC has a great talent in d-end Landry. But Landry played both boundary and field end, if you were wondering).
RUN GAME TRENDS, SCHEMES & ANALYSIS
* ND ran to the field only once in the first quarter against BC, and that was on third-and-17. (Again, not willing to let Wimbush put the ball up on third and long).
* ND ran it to the field only two times in the second quarter:
Once on the first play of the drive, which I think was a purposeful tendency-breaker. (That was on a buck sweep option to the field. That means it’s QB mesh read option with a pulling guard from the back side. Kind of like power read option).
The other was a zone read keep to the field (he had an option to leave it with the RB for an inside run). So that one wasn’t a pure, designed run to the field.
They don’t like to run to the field.
If ND doesn’t change this tendency, then Michigan State’s safeties and linebackers can cheat a half step or a step, which can give a run defense the edge it needs through the course of a game.
Just be aware of this tendency. And if you see ND sending ground plays to the field early in the game on Saturday, you’ll know they’re breaking tendency, and I’ll tweet about it.
In the red zone, QB Wimbush did counter-boot to the field (with three receivers available to him). He kept it for a 3-yard TD.
* ND rushed for 515 yards vs Boston College. (BC never gave up more than 230 yards rushing last year).
OTHER TRAITS: P AND 10 ALERT
* Kelly no longer calls the plays for ND.
But I suspect there is a lot of Brian Kelly involved in the first play of each drive. On those plays, which we call “p and 10” the first first-and-10 of a drive, Notre Dame will mix things up a bit more on that first play of a drive.
Some creative stuff they have done on p-and-10.
They will play action and go deep backside (vs temple).
They went flea flicker vs Georgia on first play of the game.
* Play action throw back sneak route vs Georgia (almost intercepted).
* Went deep to St. Brown vs press on the fourth drive of the game vs Georgia (INC).
* Packers sweep out of a QB mesh read, gain of 10, late in the 1H vs BC.
* RPO bubble screen to St. Brown on p-and-10 with 7:00 left in the 1H vs Boston College. They were trying to get St. Brown involved, because he had been invisible (well not invisible. He had been targeted on some passes, but Wimbush threw inaccurately to him, repeatedly. Most of Brown’s routes were intermediate routes. Wimbush can’t throw those routes. So shortening some of the routes for Brown is necessary to get the ball in his hands more).
NOTRE DAME PERSONNEL
QB Brandon Wimbush (6-2, 228, R-Soph. Teaneck, NJ)
* He had about 30 snaps in 2015. No snaps last year.
* Wimbush was 11 of 24 for 96 yards with 1 INT against Boston College.
* He rushed for 207 yards on 21 carries with four TDs vs Boston College.
* First ND QB ever to rush for 200 yards in a game.
He carried on designed keeps (counters and sweeps and the occasional QB draw), and read options, and tuck-and-run scrambles.
* Wimbush 106 yards rushing vs Temple.
* He is occasionally good throwing the ball, like a young Taylor Martinez. His first play of the year, against Temple, he zipped a bullet on a deep out to the back side of the field. He executed that pass once against Georgia too (to the inside receiver on a deep corner route while the outside receiver cleared the area with a deep go route down the sideline. Hit that play to 86 the tight end for 32 yards against Georgia).
For one or two highlights, he looks good.
But the rest of the time, he has been shaky. He misses high way too often, often with tip drill danger.
What’s the problem? I’m not a QB doctor, but his feet are wrong, which makes him try to generate too much with his arm alone.
Secondly, he is late with throws. He stares down a route, and looks at it and looks at it and throws late, and then too often it’s inaccurate. He rarely goes to a second or third read.
Kelly has been supportive of him publicly. I think Kelly doesn’t want to say what’s really on his mind about this QB and exacerbate the problem. But I might be wrong. These are some insightful quotes from Kelly this week on Wimbush:
“We’ve got a fantastic competitor, a kid with terrific grit and toughness,” Kelly said of Wimbush. “He is going to develop in the passing game. That’s just a matter of time. Through adversity, he is going to keep fighting and our kids love that.”
“I think there is a little bit of inaccuracy there where he is a little rushed at times when he needs to just settle into the game.
“He made a beautiful throw to Smith on a corner route. When he settled into the (Boston College) game I thought he threw the ball much better.
“I feel like we can craft things. We should be able to be smart enough as coaches to figure out what his strengths are at this point and where he is going to develop, moving forward.
“I really didn’t know how this offense was going to be from the quarterback position in terms of where Brandon was going to take it until we got into a few games. Now I think we know what part of the library we need to move towards. We have plenty of offense. Now we can focus on the things he does really well and that’s where this offense will continue to grow and develop.”
**
There’s no question Kelly and Wimbush and they are working on these things. What are the chances the mode of operation improves drastically in time for this game? The odds are against it.
- Mechanically, he gets in a habit of having his feet wrong, leaning back on his back foot, bad mechanics that only Dan Marino can get away with. He did this on a near INT that should have been pick six, inaccurate, and late, late in the 3Q on out route vs Georgia. Throw intended for WR Cam Smith. Smith had to break it up.
* His shortcomings as a passer won’t be a big deal if ND rushes for 250 yards or more.
* Has JT Barrett speed, not quite Braxton Miller or Taylor Martinez speed. He eats up yards, but has size and one-cut, subtle agility that gets him past the first tackler.
Plus plays and minus plays by Wimbush:
+ 2-yard TD run vs Georgia, play action waggle roll, had receivers flowing with him but sprinted to the pylon and showed very good speed in outrunning the Georgia pursuit to the goal line.
+ 10 yard run to the 1-yard line vs BC on a QB counter lead. Mesh with tailback then tailback leads into an interior gap, RT pulls leads off tackle. QB with a nice little move to daylight then physical through the tackle at the goal line.
That’s ND. Varied attack with various pullers and lead blockers and a QB with an improving ability to make the mesh read, and then become hard to tackle.
+ 3-10 vs man to man, dropped back, tuck and run. Reading man to man, he tucked right away, Made a move on CB, out ran the LB, and cut inside to try to break a tackle. This was vs blitz. Gain of 46 yards. Was willing to take on that LB and challenge him to try to tackle him. Has a tailback mentality when he cuts.
+ 1-10 pass third quarter to TE on a corner route, nice agile release move against an OLB, Nod to the corner, nod to the post, back to the corner. Ball in the air for 25 yards. Gain of 33. One of his better passes of the season. Has his moments. Will he have a disproportionate, uncharacteristic number of moments, like Hornibrook of Wisconsin last year?
- Missed dangerously high when rolling to his right. Targeted St. Brown on that one, couldn’t hook it up. (more on the curious case of St. Brown in a moment).
* Fumbled mesh read at his own 33-yard line on opening drive of the 2H last week with a 14-10 lead.
-/+ 1-10, play action half roll TIME to throw but was late with the throw. WR 15 Cam Smith was wide open on an over route. The ball was late, but the play still worked. Thrown at 20 yards, gain of 29.
- 3-3 INC in flat to RB Adams on first drive, didn’t have the touch to get it to him.
- A little late on an out route to TE 86 Alize Mack (slot receiver on this play), near INT vs Temple, second drive.
- inaccurate to St. Brown on 17 yard out to the far side of the field vs Temple.
+ Scramble keep on third and goal TD vs Temple, 14-0.
- missed terribly on first and 10 early in 2q, sprint out, short out route for 15, inc. short hopped it.
- terrible decision on p and 10 early 2q, half roll, throwback, threw it blind, trying to throw it away or just bad? UGA player only one with a chance, near pick six. Ugly pass. The type that causes you to lose confidence in your QB.
+ Kept on a run pass option for a TD keeper vs UGA to go up 10-3
- INT missed St. Brown High on a post during two minute drill last week for tip drill INT.
St. Brown was on one-WR side, which ND likes to do. Put him on one side by himself. Put two or three receivers to the other side. Stretch the defense. Make the safetes make a choice. If they choose to roll a safety more toward St. Brown on the short side of the field, then the the three-receiver combination on the field side will have more open lanes, in theory.
“He has to throw this ball on time,” said color commentator Brian Griese. “And St. Brown took a little too much time getting out of his break.”
ANYTHING SPECIAL?
Does Michigan State have to do anything special against Wimbush?
Not really. Just basic football. TACKLE!
Play the zone read stuff good and honest. Don’t give up too much daylight on the edge gaps.
Be tough vs blocks on the perimeter to set the edge. All the basic stuff that Michigan State is well-schooled to do.
Should Michigan State put a spy on him?
Maybe on third-down situations. Maybe if Michigan State is playing man-to-man on a given play, a spy would be a good idea.
When you use a spy, you’re taking a man out of your coverage. But Wimbush is not a good enough passer to make you pay for being a man down in your secondary.
That makes him as good a candidate to see a spy as any QB.
Michigan State has used spies in the past in passing situations. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s revisited five or six times in a game like this.
So who’s the spy? Well, it’s going to be a guy in the nickel defense. So it might be a guy like Shane Jones on third downs, although he’s not a speed burner.
Maybe Antjuan Simmons, who has seen action in the nickel defense.
Occasionally, in a non-nickel situation, Chris Frey would be a candidate.
* In general, I like MSU’s chances of playing well as the end man on the line of scrimmage against the mesh reads. Play it at the proper angle, make the QB hand it off, and then rely on DT and ILB play to contain the inside run from there.
Sounds good in theory. I think Michigan State has decent pieces to make it work against that part of the ND offense.
The Back-Up QB:
Wimbush went down for one play in the second quarter vs Georgia when he got a little dinged.
Ian Book (6-0, 208, R-Fr., El Dorado Hills, Calif) came in for a drop back, tuck and run on third and long.
Against BC, Book was 0-for-3 in mop up duty. I didn’t see the film of his three throws.
Book was a three-star recruit, ranked the No. 15 pro style QB by Rivals.com, and No. 57 in California.
RUNNING BACKS:
Josh Adams (6-2, 225, Jr., Warrington, Pa.)
* Lethal mixture of size, cutting ability, good acceleration. Good top-end speed. Nimble at his size.
Has rushed for 443 yards (7.9 per attempt) in emerging as one of the top RBs in the nation.
Last year, he rushed for 933 yards.
Rushed for 835 as a freshman in 2015.
He was a three-star recruit, ranked No. 12 in Pennsylvania by Rivals.com, No. 47 RB.
He had 218 yards in the first half against Boston College, 129 of it on two runs.
* Very good receiver. Had a 19-yard catch on a wheel route vs Georgia, hauling in a poorly-thrown pass.
* 37-yard catch and run on a throwback screen vs Georgia, taking it to the 5-yard line. Nice looking play. It was set up by a hard handoff fake to the field.
Stop right there.
A fake to the field?
They don’t like to run to the field.
If it’s hard run action to the field, don’t necessarily over-flow to it. Alert to a throwback.
That’s what this was. The 37-yarder was a key play on a scoring drive.
+ Gain of 60 on a counter sweep. Right guard and right tackle pulling, he cut sharp and hard to daylight, and was hard to tackle as he broke into the secondary.
+ Had a 65-plus yard run as part of a run-pass option, Tevin Coleman style from the Indiana days (an exact Kevin Wilson play that sprang for a 50-plus yard TD vs Michigan State and Taiwon Jones). They stretched the slot LB into a run-pass conflict, the LB faded to the No. 3 WR and the bubble threat, so the QB hands off and Adams jets through the B gap that the LB was supposed to be hosting.
BC was in a quarters zone for that play, very much like MSU’s base defense. But the backside safety wasn’t set at the snap, and had a false step. Michigan State is less likely to have that error.
And the slot LB was skewed too far to the three-WRs. Against this team, play the run first and react out to the pass. BC did the opposite and the RB got out for 60-plus.
Michigan State will prepare for this play. I suspect they will be okay against it. They’ve seen it before as coaches, and will have a philosophy.
* On another Adams 60-plus yarder, the end man on the line of scrimmage didn’t squeeze the outside gap tight enough, played the QB keeper too much. The handoff jetted up the middle and that end man on the line of scrimmage tried to dive inside to get him, but missed the tackle.
This wasn’t dominant blocking. It was just a good running outfit taking advantage of some shaky gap integrity.
“We got back to running hard and breaking through some tackles (Against BC),” Kelly said. “He wasn’t hesitating in the hole.”
Kelly said ND running backs tried to be too fine too much against Georgia, tried to finesse their way to long runs too foten rather than just hitting it hard and taking what was there. Said they did it better, more aggressively vs BC.
+ On another long run, RG and RT double-teamed the d-tackle and moved him two yards off the ball. Too much daylight, and the BC middle linebacker wasn’t in his correct gap.
(This type of play is much less likely to break and get out vs Michigan State. MSU’s d-tackles have been good at taking on double-teams. Will they remain that way against this o-line? Yes, because Panasiuk and Raequan Williams were good vs the double-teams of Ohio State last November, and that’s when they were freshmen. They’ve been good this year, they should be fine against these double teams. And MSU’s MLB hasn’t made a gap error that I’ve seen all year).
RB 2 DEXTER WILLIAMS (5-11, 215, Jr., Winter Garden, Fla.)
* He doesn’t get a lot of work. Has only 12 carries this year, 174 yards (that 14.5 yards per carry).
He has three TDs, including a 66-yarder.
* Against Temple, Adams rushed for 161, back-up RB Dexter Williams rushed for 124, Wimbush rushed for 106.
WIDE RECEIVERS:
* Good talent here, but Wimbush is having trouble hooking up with them.
EQUANIMEOUS ST. BROWN (6-5, 203, Jr., Anaheim, Calif.)
* Scary talent. Was a four-star recruit, ranked No. 144 in the nation and No. 23 in California.
STAT OF THE DAY: He had 58 catches for 961 yards and nine TDs last year.
This year, he has only 7 catches, one TD.
Seven catches? He’s on pace for only 28 on the year.
He’s running good routes. He’s still himself.
But Wimbush is flat out missing him. He’s targeting him, trying to throw to him, but is missing high.
St. Brown is getting frustrated.
But there is potential here for ND. If Wimbush can get dialed in with St. Brown, this becomes a Top 20 type of team.
This is a huge x-factor for this game. This offense becomes balanced and dangerous if Wimbush is able to pass to St. Brown five or six times in a game.
* Kelly, like a lot of coaches, likes to challenge press coverage with the deep shot - especially on the first play of a possession.
ND will do that for St. Brown at least once. They’ll put him on the short side of the field do it.
If you’re Michigan State, which CB do you put on him to the short side? Justin Layne is a better size matchup. Josiah Scott has better feet. You’ll find out when I find out.
All Michigan State CBs play boundary CB and field CB. They can mix and match it however they want. Their choice will be interesting. I’m guessing Scott, to begin with.
I could list six times when St. Brown was targeted in the last two games and Wimbush missed him, but I’ll spare you the details.
Wimbush did find him on a slant for a gain of 8 on a third-and-six vs Georgia, but it was thrown high too, very high, and hard and difficult to catch, but St. Brown caught that one.
* St. Brown leads ND wide receivers in catches with seven on the year.
Tight end Alize Mack leads the team in catchees with nine.
Adams, the RB, is second with eight.
The other wide receivers haven’t been much to write about:
WR CAMERON SMITH
* 6 catches, 55 yards.
10 WR CHRIS FINKE (5-9, 181, R-Soph., Kettering, Ohio, Bishop Alter)
* 3 catches, 36 yards
* Punt returner. He didn’t do much as a punt return in the last two games.
83 WR CHASE CLAYPOOL (6-4, 228, Soph., Abbotsford, British Columbia)
* 3 catches, 24 yards
WR FREDDY CANTEEN
* 1 catch, 7 yards, transfer from Michigan
* Tight ends are athletic route runners, can fake a block and slip downfield and get vertical quickly, threaten the two-deep seam, but QB might not get it to them for one reason or another.
86 TE ALIZE MACK (6-5, 251, R-Soph., Las Vegas).
* Looks good, plays good.
* Solid possesion route guy, and also gets downfield for the corner route to the left side of the field (I haven’t seen Wimbush make that throw to the rigth).
* Mack led ND in receiving vs Boston College with five catches.
They like the tight end on a H-back route, coming across the formation on the negative side of the line of scrimmage for a short, easy pass out to the flat. They haven’t done much damage with this, although they run it a lot.
+ Waggle roll on p and 10 early in 2q. Gain of about 15.
- Dropped pass on 1-10 third quarter vs UGA. Looking deep for St. Brown on a double move, not there, check down to TE on delayed out route, dropped it.
80 TE DURHAM SMYTHE (6-5, 257, Sr., Tinley Park, Ill)
* Had 12 catches last year.
* 3 catches this year.
* A plus blocker.
+ Quick as blocker, blocking down on a linemen, then quick and agile feet to get out to a LB, as shown early in the Georgia game.
+ Down block, then out to cut a safety on a counter to his side vs UGA. ND guys stay on their blocks, stay busy in their blocking two, three, four beats into a play.
OFFENSIVE LINE:
* Good o-line.
* NFL player at LT, All-American.
* All-American candidate at LG.
* Center is good.
* RG is quite good.
* RT they have had some competition there and some false starts from the back-up.
But I’ve watched two-and-a-half games pretty closely and I have seen very, very, very few missed blocks.
Are these guys destroyers? No. They’re good, they play well together, double-team well together, climb out to the LB level for combo blocks on time and sharply.
Pass protection has been good for the most part although the LT got beat for a couple of sacks against Georgia, including one that resulted in a fumble in the last two minutes, ending ND’s chances.
The o-line kept d-end Landry of Boston College pretty quiet. Landry led the nation in sacks last year.
DEFENSE
(Okay, I need to finish this and get to my son’s birthday dinner. So let’s get quicker with the info):
DEFENSIVE LINE:
* Excellent at d-end with 93 JAY HAYES (6-4, 290, R-Jr., Brooklyn, NY).
With that size, it’s difficult to win the edge to his side. TEs will have a hard time blocking him.
He’s quick and fast enough to pursue well from the back side.
How will he do when left unblocked and optioned? We’ll find out. That size could work against him a little bit vs zone read option, although Michigan State doesn’t run it all that much.
The other DE, DAELIN HAYES (6-4, 258, Soph., Belleville, Mich./Ann Arbor Skyline)
He starts as a stand-up end, “drop” end.
He makes some loud, athletic plays once in awhile. But down-in, and down-out, he has his limitations.
He was ranked No. 1 in the state by Rivals.com two years ago.
Hayes has had some problems at the point of attack vs the run. Georgia tight end put him on skates and erased him to the sideline for a 30-yard run by RB Chubb early in the game.
Georgia made a point to run right at No. 9 Hayes on the first drive of the 2H.
I would look for Michigan State to do the same.
Why run toward 93’s side when you can run toward No. 9’s side?
Keep an eye on that.
No. 9 has made a little bit of noise in the pass rush, but I like Brandon Randle’s take-off and counter moves better.
* The defensive tackles are quite good. 99 and 55, Tillery and Bonner. Good, good. Both are Raequan Williams types, but Tillery is taller.
99 Tillery (6-7, 306, Jr., Shreveport, La.) overran an outside zone once against BC, and the RB cut it back for a good gain. But 99 is an NFL player.
55 Bonner (6-4, 292, R-Jr., Chesterfield, Mo.) is quality.
Back-up No. 95 Myron Tagovailoa-Amosa (6-2, 293, Fr., Ewa Beach, Hi.) came off the bench for a turning point play on a fourth-and-one stoppage against BC. He destroyed the left guard on an inside zone. At times like this when they bring a guy off the bench who makes a play like that, they still look like Old Notre Dame.
* 41 (Kurt Hinish, 6-2, 290, Fr., Pittsburgh), back-up DT, has gotten beaten back a a couple of times. Not as good against double teams.
* 42 Julian Okwara (6-4, 240, Soph., Charlotte NC) designated pass rusher. Had a sack vs. Temple. Not bad. Not scary good.
LINEBACKERS:
Drue Tranquill (6-2, 231, R-Jr., Fort Wayne) quick contact player. Plays in the slot. Plays fast and smart.
He plays a little like Chris Frey, but in the slot.
I didn’t expect Tranquill to be as good a hitter as he’s become. I thought he was kind of a pretty boy on the camp circuit. Michigan State looked at him, didn’t offer. He’s proved himself. Quick, quality college player.
MLB 5 NYLES MORGAN (6-1, 235, Sr., Crete, Ill.) is mostly a good, thumping inside LB.
+ Good hard hit as the second man in to cause a fumble vs BC on an inside run (BC recovered). Plays with a physical, quick tilt.
* I’m not sure about the third LB position. 48 Greer Martini (6-4, 235, Sr., Cary, NC) is the starter but was on the bench a lot last week.
+ Good job playing the outside zone to his side, took on pulling lineman, rip and shed to win the edge for ILB to pursue and make the tackle late in the first half. But I haven’t seen much more out of him.
* Martini’s back-up, No. 4, Te’Von Coney, is athletic but makes mistakes. Coney (6-1, 240, Jr. Palm Beach, Fla.). He makes some loud plays, does some good things. But overpursued an off-tackle run to the short side in the 2Q vs BC and was partly responsible for the RB cutting back and going 28 yards.
Coney played MLB on that play and over-pursued, didn’t aim for the cut back hip, got too far out in front.
- Very next play: Coney was in the wrong gap on a 9-yard burst on an inside zone, the best ground flurry by BC all day - both with Coney responsible.
- RB plowed over him for four yards on third-and-2 in the 2q vs BC. If he makes a tough hit, they can stop him short of the first down.
+ Vs Ga, he executed a strong two hand shiver to get off a block, made a tackle on an outside zone to his side, gain of 2. Nice play. I could list four or five other impressive plays I’ve seen from him. Lots of potential, needs to eliminate the errors.
PASS DEFENSE:
* They’ll mix zone and man-to-man, like Michigan State. They aren’t a heavy blitz team. Their coverages are functional, not great. Nothing to be afraid of. Lewerke should be able to execute against these guys.
* Their safeties were a preseason question mark.
* I don’t have much of a read on their DBs because they haven’t yet faced a good passing attack. Georgia’s QB was a true frosh. BC’s quarterback was a redshirt frosh, and he wasn’t any good.
Their situation is similar to MSU’s defensive backs. So far, not bad, but largely untested.
* 20 CB SEAN CRAWFORD has been beaten deep a couple of times but QBs haven’t been able to complete the hook-up.
20 CB SEAN CRAWFORD
+covered 4 Hardman of Georgia deep in the second quarter on a go route on third and long. WR might have had a half step on him. Wasn’t burned.
= Tested deep on third and 8 in 2q vs BC. Was beaten by a step but QB overthrew him.
+ Had a hand in three turnovers vs BC.
* Missed the last two seasons.
+ INT on third-and-seven deep fade. Covered him well, turned back for the ball in man-to-man, secured the INT.
- Beaten deep on a post by GA late in the 3Q at the 10-yard line. Dropped. Should have been an easy TD. Punted two plays later .
27 CB JULIAN LOVE (5-11, 193, Soph., Westchester, Ill.)
* Their most questionable corner.
- Beaten on 22 yard post to Boston College TE, off of play action. Love wasn’t physical with him, couldn’t close late. Very good pass, very good catch high.
+ Excellent pass break-up on an out route in the third quarter vs BC.
* Beaten on corner fade for 5-yard TD vs UGA, but covered it pretty well, leaping 1-handed catch.
+ Good coverage deep vs WR Tyler Simmons of UGA in the third quarter, INC.
- Beaten on a double move off the release, open by a yard, QB missed him, late 3Q.
24 S NICK COLEMAN
+ Great read and quick burst, scraping to the backfield to stop Wildcat QB for no gain on third-and-2 inthe first quarter.
* Hurt his shoulder while making a tackle in the second quarter against Boston College, maybe his collar bone.
+ Solid tackler on run play right at him in the 2q last week.
7 CB NICK WATKINS (6-1, 207, Jr, DeSoto, Tx)
- Failed to finish a tackle in off coverage on third-and-10 in the first quarter vs BC, allowing a first down in the red zone.
* Left CB, short side CB
+ Good tackle on 3-7 out in third quarter vs BC.
- Beaten deep on go route by UGA in the first quarter for about 40 yards, but it looked like an accidental back shoulder pass. Beaten by about a yard by No. 5.
* short side left CB
- Beaten by deep back shoulder, off coverage, good catch good ball gave UGA first and 10 at the 16 with 5:15 to play.
SPECIAL TEAMS
* I haven’t studied their special teams closely, but their return game didn’t raise any eyebrows in the first three games.
ON THE MUST LIST:
* Michigan State slot LB Andrew Dowell MUST tackle better. He missed a couple last week. He needs to arrive on-time, correctly, with force and efficiently. ND will put guys in space and test Dowell’s tackling.
* Michigan State needs to establish a ground component of its offense. We’ve spent so much time talking about ND’s run game. What about MSU’s run game? It’s been a little late to the party this year.
Can Michigan State run the ball against this quality ND defensive front?
They should be able to. Boston College rushed for 185.
THE TO-DO LIST:
Run it at No. 9 Hayes.
Also, ND had some problems with cutbacks vs. the outside zone. They had problems with overpursuit from DL No 99 and LB No. 4.
Run the outside zone, look for cutback daylight.
SOME FINAL THOUGHTS
Michigan State in theory is the more balanced team. if Michigan State achieves balance and prevents ND from being balanced, and doen’t let ND pop off for 210 or more yards, then Michigan State, as the more balanced team, SHOULD win.
If ND’s pass game doesn’t achieve a level of balance, then Michigan State should be able to use that against ND to further skew things toward run support, and make it that much more difficult for ND’s strength (its running attack) to rule the day.
Of course, Michigan State needs to achieve balance of its own. That’s not a given.
In the end, Michigan State figures to be the more balnced team (thus far) and is playing at home. ND is more battle-tested. That’s a big deal because ND might be better than it looks, and Michigan State might not be as good as it looks, just because of the quality of opposition each team has faced.
Things That make me pause:
wimbush looks good like one out of every eight or nine passes. can he come in here and put on a JT barrett display? No way in hell. Can he do like Alex Hornibrook of Wisconsin last year. No. But that was some voodoo stuff that Hornibook did last year. He was flat out perfect against Michigan State and hasn’t come close to anything like that, since. And the coverage wasn’t that bad. He was just crazy-perfect.
As long as Michigan State isn’t in debt to the football devil, I wouldn’t expect the Spartans to have that tpe of Twilight Zone experence with Wimbush.
* ND went for 600-plus yards in two of its three games. I usually overrate ND at this time of year. But there’s a chance I’m underrating them and underrating what 600 yards of offense means, regardless of the opponent.
As I said in the V-Cast on Tuesday, I made the mistake of underrating the Nebraska rush offense back in the Rex Burkhead/Taylor Martinez days, thinking MSU’s heavyweight run defense would hold Nebraska to well below its averages. But I was wrong. Nebraska kept swinging, kept swinging, got into its tempo, fatigued the Michigan State defense, and put up its rush game numbers a few times against Michigan State.
Those were better Michigan State defenses in those days. This year’s defense isn’t as good as those, HOWEVER the Spartans are more equipped and trained (via more use of reserves) to at least handle the fatigue factor. Tempo-based ground offense was a brand new thing back when Nebraska tapped out Michigan State a couple of times. Michigan State has a better construct on that stuff now, and they’re waiting for their new defensive personnel to mature and grow up in other areas.
ADD IT ALL UP
I think Michigan State holds ND to less than 175 yards rushing. That might not sound great it isn’t. But it puts ND right in the category of critical mass. That might not be enough on the ground to win, without help from the passing attack.
Can Wimbush find four or five intermediate or downfield passes to provide just enough balance? He was bad last week. Stunk out loud. On third-and-medium or third-and-long, EVER pass was short and controlled. They don’t trust him.
Who is more likely to make the big mistake? Lewerke or Wimbush? I think Wimbush.
I think Michigan State has run some good route combinations and concepts this year against questionable opponents, but WMU’s defensive backfield was good. Michigan State needed to be sharp against those guys, and Lewerke adjusted away from Dairus Phillips.
MSU’s ground game is a question mark. I would be more comfortable in picking Michigan State if MSU’s ground game had been punishing people this year. But that hasn’t been the case. HOWEVER, MSU’s ground game has been known to go from pedestrian to awesome overnight in the Dantonio era. They could use some of that magic right now, and they probably need it.
So which area is more likely to come through on Saturday? MSU’s ground game or Wimbush’s passing game? Again, I go with Michigan State ground game on that one.
Which defensive backfield is most likely to stink up the joint? Call that one even.
Add it all up, and I think these are the most likely scenarios:
MSU’s run defense isn’t good enough to stop ND’s ground attack cold? But good enough to contain it to 170 yards or less.
Wimbush might continue to miss high on everyone, and hold the ball too long, and his tuck-and-runs won’t be as effective. But he’ll clip off two or three nice passes, and if he avoids the big mistake, that’ll be a big plus for ND.
Will Lewerke become Kirk Cousins right now? Probably not. But I think he’ll do enough to give Michigan State the edge in the passing game it needs.
But these scenarios are not decisive. That means the game will likely hang in the balance for the big error, the big turnover, the big special teams play, the big fake field goal.
You can flip a coin on this one. I will lean toward the home team with the more composed quarterback, and blossoming receivers, and an overdue running attack, an underrated ground defense.
