The Pre-Snap Read
Michigan State vs Purdue
By Jim Comparoni
SpartanMag.com Publisher
West Lafayette, Ind. - The last time Purdue played a national Top 5 team, the Boilermakers stunned No. 2 Iowa, 24-7, in Iowa City.
Iowa turned out to be a one-dimensional team which peaked in September.
But Purdue (5-3 overall and 3-2 in the Big Ten) showed some things on that day that creates reason for concern for No. 3-ranked Michigan State this week. Enough concern that head coach Mel Tucker ramped up his level of intensity just a bit during his weekly press conference, just a small sample of the urgency he put on his team and staff this week. Things have been hot at the Skandalaris Center this week because the Spartans have become a cool national story, and Tucker doesn’t want the momentum to hit a wall. Michigan State hasn’t been 8-0 since 1966. Programs don’t get opportunities like this very often. Maybe Miami and Indiana didn’t turn out to be as good as we thought in the preseason, maybe Michigan was better than expected, maybe Michigan State didn’t deserve to beat Nebraska. That stuff doesn’t matter. What matters is Michigan State is 8-0, the hottest college football story in the country (outside of Georgia), and it can’t afford to let this house money be squandered away by the Spoilermakers.
The good news for Michigan State is that the Spartans harnessed a level of improvement last week, as Michigan State often does in the face of its rivalry game against Michigan.
The Spartans’ ground defense went from pretty good to very good against one of the top rushing outfits in the country.
MSU’s ground offense went from shaky in its previous outing at Indiana to excellent against the Wolverines, thanks not only to the recharged battery of Kenneth Walker III, but also smarter, more efficient run blocking from the offensive line and tight ends.
The blocks by tight ends Connor Heyward and Tyler Hunt during Walker’s 58-yard TD run in the second half were a high water mark for those two guys. They were good most of the day. (They were awful against Nebraska).
And during Walker’s TKO 23-yard TD run in the final minutes, Kevin Jarvis dominated Michigan’s second-string defensive tackle on that play, sealing him to the outside while right tackle AJ Arcuri folded inside and double-teamed a defensive tackle with precision.
The blocking on the 23-yard TD was all well and good, but Michigan State also needed Walker to trust the blocking and run to the smoke. Michigan State o-line coach and run game coordinator Chris Kapilovic said as great as Walker had played in the games leading up to last week, they wanted him to trust the blocking schemes a little more in some situations.
That was one such situation.
It was third-and-three, in the red zone. Even if Walker had been stopped on that play, the Spartans needed a yard or two to set up a choice of going for it on fourth down. That decision never had to be made as Walker hit the A-gap with quickness and forward intensity. The hole wasn’t super wide, but there was daylight when the smoke cleared, and he raced through it like a revolving door.
Michigan State looked pretty good on tape to the Wolverine defense, if they were honest with themselves. But that play, its precision and north-and-south attitude, and the blocking of those tight ends, were examples of a fine-tuning process which dropped on the Wolverines last week.
Also, let the record show that Michigan State was the stronger, better-conditioned team in the fourth quarter once again - repeating a trend that could and should make the Spartans more-equipped to protect leads in the late going, add to them, or forge comebacks.
As for areas that need tightening of the screws:
Michigan State’s pass defense has given up big figures all year in terms of total yardage, but not always in terms of yards per pass attempt, and usually not in terms of touchdowns.
Michigan not only put up big yards through the air, the Wolverines also notched three passing TDs.
The Spartans need to get back to being a decent pass defense in terms of yards allowed per pass attempt, and - more importantly - a quality pass defense in the red zone.
Last week, Michigan targeted safety Angelo Grose and victimized him when they were able to get him in one-on-one matchups in the slot in man-to-man. At SpartanMag.com, we have been highly complimentary of Grose’s physicality, intensity and ability to play the run. But dating back to preseason camp, and problems against Youngstown State, we said that teams would target No. 15 and he needed to prove he could withstand the attention.
No opponent made a concerted effort to target Grose until Michigan did last week, and it was nearly the foundation of a Wolverine victory. Even the incomplete pass into the end zone on third-and-three on Michigan’s next-to-last drive resulted in Grose being beat on a slot fade to the corner by a step and a half, only to end with QB Cade McNamara overthrowing his open target.
Now comes Purdue’s David Bell, the Big Ten’s most prolific pass receiver, and a Boilermaker passing attack that is mostly a ball-control, intermediate, possession type of passing attack, but one that is averaging 307 yards passing per game in Big Ten play, ranking No. 3 in the conference.
Screws need to be tightened in pass defense. Grose needs to get the best out of his quickness and maximize his knowledge and ability to anticipate.
MSU’s pass rush needs to be more effective than a week ago. And MSU’s offense can’t take a step backward from last week’s progress in the run game, and the offensive balance that has been the cornerstone for MSU’s historic (to this point) 8-0 start and reemergence into national relevancy.
I haven’t covered many teams that have been unbeaten in October. But one thing I noticed was that unbeaten teams received heightened challenges from each subsequent opponent. I saw it at Purdue in 1999, at Iowa in 2010 and at Nebraska in 2015. None of those were played during the ninth game of the season. The intensity, opportunity, and proneness will grow this weekend at Ross-Ade Stadium.
FINAL ANALYSIS FIRST
You’re fully aware of all those intangibles that have gained credence over time. Like last week, Michigan State was coming off a bye week, which likely aided the Spartans’ preparation and physicality. Same with Indiana the week before, against Michigan State. And Purdue had the bye week prior to its upset of Iowa (which doesn’t seem like much of an upset anymore). Now, Michigan State is battling the other age-old intangible, the let-down after a major breakthrough win.
Michigan State was good the week after playing Michigan in the Dantonio era. Now, Mel Tucker has to prove he’s good the week after the Michigan game. Last year, not so good, in a 49-7 loss at Iowa.
Tucker is saying all the right things, making all the right demands this week. We’ll see if it works against a Purdue team coming of a man-sized win at Nebraska, fully expecting to be the better team on Saturday against the Spartans.
KEY MATCHUP
Purdue offers a mixture of a precise, smart QB, a cast of decent receivers headlined by a terrific route runner in WR David Bell, an excellent pass-catching tight end (who might not be available), and tricky short-area route combinations that are difficult to cover.
Purdue QB Aidan O’Connell began last week’s game 16 of 19 for 107 yards. Not a lot of yards. Not a lot of incompletions.
He began the Wisconsin game 15-of-20, again for just 107 yards (but with two INTs sewn in).
O’Connell and Bell destroyed Iowa’s vaunted pass defense in a 24-7 victory over the Hawkeyes.
O’Connell was 30 of 40 for 375 yards with 2 TDs and 0 interceptions at Iowa.
Bell had 11 catches for 240 yards.
Those numbers are absurd, considering Iowa’s terrific pass defense.
However, Purdue did a good job early on of picking-apart Iowa’s zones. Iowa didn’t get heat on the QB. Iowa changed up and played more man-to-man than I’ve seen from them in awhile, maybe years, maybe ever, and Purdue - already in a confident rhythm - started nailing the Hawkeyes with Bell against that man-to-man. It was a nauseating experience for Iowa, and the Hawkeyes haven’t recovered.
So now we have a quality, ball-control style Purdue passing attack against a loose-screw Michigan State pass defense. That’s strength against weakness, right?
Well, I’m not sure MSU’s pass defense can be dismissed week after week as a weakness against all types of pass offenses. I think MSU’s pass defense has a chance to improve. Cornerback play has been pretty good, although chester Kimbrough got turned inside out in quarters coverage in the red zone on a good double move to the corner by Andrel Anthony for 17 yards. Kimbrough might have been caught keying the run a little too hard, with run-oriented UM QB JJ McCarthy on the field at that time.
Kimbrough was replaced by freshman Charles Brantley soon after that play.
Michigan made it 30-14 on a 19-yard pass (on third-and-9), to WR Mike Sanristil. On that play, Michigan State showed zone at pre-snap, but morphed into man-to-man. Michigan State brought a five-man rush. The pass rush didn’t get home, although Jacub Panasiuk (playing right DE rather than left DE) did beat the left guard and put a hand on QB McNamara as he threw. [Michigan State moved Panasiuk to the right side, and slanted him inside to go against UM’s worst pass protecter, LG Keegan, while Michigan State blitzed LB Haladay at the left tackle. Good plan, but it didn’t get home in time.]
With Michigan State in man-to-man, it put Grose on Sanristil in the slot. Michigan was making one read by this point in the game, in a lot of situations. They were reading the No. 3 WR (the third receiver from the sideline), if and when he matched up with Grose in man-to-man. Period.
(Same thing on the 43-yarder to Sanristil in the fourth quarter on third-and-long after Michigan State had tied the game at 30-30 and had all the momentum).
Could Michigan State have operated differently on that TD pass to Sanristil? There are always different choices and options.
On that play, Michigan State went with one CB to the left and one CB to the right. Michigan had three WRs to its left and only a TE (attached to the offensive line) to the right.
Michigan State could have put both CBs to the three-WR side in a “corners over” look. I haven’t seen Michigan State do that yet this year. Under Mark Dantonio, Michigan State would do that from time to time, but rarely. They would only do it if the opponent had a truly problematic matchup at WR.
On the TD pass to Sanristil, Michigan State kept one CB to the left and one CB to the right, even against the 3 by 1 formation (with the 1 being a tight end), because that approach almost always indicates zone defense. Why keep a CB (Ronald Williams) on the TE side? Almost certainly that CB is going to drop into zone coverage at the snap rather than “wasting” a CB on a TE, right?
Well, Williams has the size to matchup with a TE. Secondly, Michigan favors passing to the TE on third down, so you couldn’t fault Michigan State for showing zone, but then keeping a big CB on Michigan’s favorite third-down pass target, while morphing into man.
That’s all well and good, when you can bank on your safety (Grose) playing good man-to-man coverage on a WR on a crossing route if your blitz doesn’t get home.
Michigan State isn’t “there yet” in terms of having all boxes checked in pass defense.
Michigan State is a good team, deserving of being ranked No. 3 in the country at this point. But there are more tests to come, and at some point, teams with better passing attacks than Michigan are going to present MSU’s pass defense with severe examinations.
Purdue has a good passing attack. In some ways (QB reads and consistent accuracy), it’s a better passing attack than Michigan’s. However, Purdue does not have the run game threat that the Wolverines had, which preoccupied Kimbrough on that TD pass to Anthony. Purdue also does not have Michigan’s pass protection.
Michigan State is still searching for the best version of itself in pass defense. Michigan State needs better LB coverage, especially when being stretched horizontally to the sideline. MSU’s LBs need to be on time and more effective when asked to blitz. Quavaris Crouch was late on one expensive occasion last week. He has the capacity to be an excellent pass rusher. Those screws need to get tightened.
Those of you who don’t like the bend-but-don’t-break defense brand of defense Michigan State has played for most of the season. Well, on third-and-medium during Michigan’s first possession last week, Michigan State played man-to-man. A bend-but-don’t-break approach would have been to go with a two-deep zone and permit Michigan to throw underneath, hit them hard, challenge Michigan State to throw accurately, catch the ball and remain patient and disciplined for along drive. Instead, Michigan State went man-to-man. Not a bend-but-don’t-break approach. Michigan hit a little crossing route that got out for a 93-yard TD.
You sure you don’t like bend-but-don’t-break?
In this game against Purdue, you might see Michigan State return to its bend-but-don’t-break roots, not because Michigan State wants to play that way, but because Michigan State is still getting its pieces in order, even this late in the season, and for good reason because Williams, Kimbrough and gimpy Marqui Lowery are still in their first season as regulars at the major college level, and Brantley is still a rookie, and Grose is still new to his position. And Michigan State coaches are still weighing whether they can put Grose on an island vs slot receivers and play man-to-man.
A bend-but-don’t-break approach to pass defense challenges a passing attack to remain disciplined and patient. Purdue is very disciplined and patient.
The question is how much respect Michigan State pays to David Bell. Michigan State paid huge respect to WR Rambo of Miami back in September, and played soft along the sidelines to prevent him from getting deep. Michigan State gave up a lot of easy completions and yardage, but no big plays, and held Miami to 17 points.
MSU’s pass defense has grown since then. Michigan State hasn’t been as “careful” against other opponents, but maybe should have been more careful against the Wolverines. That being said, Michigan State had no film and very little scouting report on Anthony - and he was a major difference-maker in the first 40 minutes of that game.
So will Michigan State pay Rambo-like respect to Bell? Bell is more of a possession type receiver than Rambo. However, Bell WILL put a double move on you and attempt to get deep at some point. But he’s more of a quick-angle type of receiver.
Purdue will move Bell from the slot, to the wide man, from left to right. After losing to Wisconsin, Purdue head coach Jeff Brohm said he erred in not moving Bell around more against the Badgers. He also said he needed to incorporate more run game into the offense.
Purdue had been averaging less than 80 yards rushing per game prior to last week’s game at Nebraska. Then Purdue came out and ran the ball on three of its first four plays against Nebraska, and continued to be run-heavy with play selection for much of the first half. Purdue had a season-high 41 rushing attempts against Nebraska (for just 2.8 yads per carry), but rushed for 116 and established enough balance to get more burn out of their play-action game.
Despite being a pass-heavy team, Purdue will strangely operate out of an I-formation, under center, several times in each game. Brohm obviously wants to incorporate the I-formation, but in order to make that thing work in play-action passing, the Purdue run game MUST be a threat. However, it has not been much of a threat this year.
So if you’re Michigan State, coming off a terrific week of run defense, can you stop the Purdue running attack while playing with two deep safeties over the top? Or do you need to commit a safety to run defense like Michigan State did last week, while leaving the pass defense windows more dangerously open?
Michigan State will probably try all of the above. As to which one they stick with, and which one works, you will find out when I do. But like I said, Michigan State doesn’t have to remain a shaky pass defense team. They are still a work in progress in this area.
Will Michigan State be more apt to play “corners over” against Bell on third downs? That almost always indicates man-to-man, but Michigan State might be willing to concede that pre-snap tipoff in order to get a preferred cover man on Bell.
Or could Michigan State show “corners over” but drop into zone? That’s sophisticated stuff, which entails asking a CB to show man coverage in the slot but drop and become a safety, and all the assignments a safety has in zone coverage route recognition. Michigan State might not be “there” yet.
If Michigan State plans to play man-to-man at key junctures like it did last week, and allow Purdue to force a matchup against Grose, that doesn’t seem like it would be smart. Michigan State might do it from time to time, just to mix tendencies, and hope the pass rush gets home in time. But it wouldn’t seem advisable for Michigan State to stick with Grose vs the No. 3 WR when in man-to-man against four-WR formations throughout the day. Maybe here and there, but not all day. If you do it all day, then Purdue can force that match-up by formation, if you’re in man-to-man.
Basically, Michigan State has some weaknesses. Purdue has some strengths. Michigan State needs to mitigate opportunities for those strengths to match up against those weaknesses.
Or you can avoid all of that by sticking mostly to zone, like you did against Miami. But fans will need to stomach number from O’Connell which could start to look like 20-for-23 or things of that nature.
My guess is that Michigan State mixes it up. Michigan State will play more zone than last week, more bend-but-don’t-break than last week, but Michigan State won’t totally vacate man-to-man coverages. When Michigan State goes to man-to-man, the Spartans need the pass rush to get home. And I suspect we will see less man-to-man the further Purdue’s offense is away from the end zone. Might not be a good idea to play man-to-man when Purdue has it third-and-eight at their own 20-yard line. Bend. Bend. I suspect that’s the trek Michigan State will need to take.
A key component to this Purdue pass offense vs Michigan State pass defense is the Boilermaker tight end.
The tight end is Payne Durham, 6-5, 255, from Suwanee, Ga. He is excellent. He was honorable mention All-Big Ten last year.
He is the second-leading receiver on the team with 36 catches and four TDs, 50.8 receiving yards per game.
He had seven catches against Wisconsin in the first two-and-a-half quarters.
However, he went down with an injury late in the Nebraska game. Brohm spoke about injuries last night after practice.
"Payne, we're not optimistic on that one," said Brohm. “He's a tough son of a gun and he plays hard and he gives us everything that he has, but he's banged up. That would be a blow if he can't go. He's done a great job and is a consistent player."
The back-up TE, Garrett Miller, missed the Nebraska game. He has seven catches on the year. He is questionable for this weekend.
"Slight chance," said Brohm. "Garrett, we're trying to get back, so we'll see."
According to GoldandBlack.com, Purdue was without No. 3 tight end Kyle Bilodeau last week, but Brohm is hopeful the sophomore will be back. Another tight, junior Jack Cravaack, already is out for the year with a knee injury. Sophomore Paul Piferi--a former quarterback--is another option at tight end along with redshirt freshman walk-on Ben Buechel.
WATCH FOR THIS
Wisconsin handcuffed Purdue’s pass offense by dropping eight into coverage, especially on third down. O’Connell was frustrated by the lack of openings. Bell had six catches for only 33 yards against the Badgers, with a long of 10 yards.
O’Connell repeatedly had to check down to TE Durham (9 catches 112 yards with 1 TD and a long of 24).
Meanwhile, Wisconsin intercepted O’Connell three times, and had six sacks. Purdue rushed for a net of -13 against the Badgers.
Michigan State hasn’t been much of a rush three/drop eight defense under Mel Tucker. But if you see it this weekend, know that it has roots in Purdue’s loss to Wisconsin.
STATS AND BACKGROUND
Before we get into other matchups, let’s look at the numbers and results to this point:
Purdue results
W vs Oregon State, 30-21
W at UConn, 49-0
L at Notre Dame, 27-13
W vs Illinois, 13-9
L vs Minnesota, 20-13
W at Iowa, 24-7
L vs Wisconsin, 30-13
W at Nebraska, 28-23
* Coach Jeff Brohm is 24-28 in his fifth season at Purdue.
* After beating Iowa, Purdue moved up to No. 25 in the rankings. That was the first time Purdue had been ranked since 2007. But Purdue lost to Wisconsin and remains unranked. Beat Michigan State, and Purdue will be back in the Top 25 next week.
THE STATS
Big Ten Rankings (in conference games only)
Purdue Offense
No. 10 in scoring offense (22.9 per game)
(Michigan State is No. 3 (34.6))
No. 8 in yards per play
(Michigan State is No. 2)
No. 14 in rush yards per play (2.5)
(Michigan State is No. 2 at 5.4)
No. 8 in pass yards per play (6.3)
(Michigan State is No. 3 at 8.8)
No. 5 in third down conversion pct (42.1)
(Michigan State is No. 12 (35.8))
Purdue Defense
No. 5 in scoring defense (17.1)
(Michigan State is No. 9 (20.5))
No. 7 in yards allowed per play
(Michigan State is No. 8)
No. 8 in rushing yards allowed per play (4.0)
(Michigan State is No. 5 (3.4))
No. 8 in pass yards allowed per play (6.7)
(Michigan State is No. 7 (6.4))
No. 4 in third down conversion pct (33.3)
(Michigan State is No. 12 (39.9))
[Ohio State is No. 13, by the way, 43.7]
APPLES TO APPLES
Purdue’s QB is good, but I would give the nod to Thorne. I’m not sure I’m married to that opinion. Both are good. Thorne has had a wider array of WRs to work with, but now Thorne is likely to be without Jalen Nailor, who injured his hand last week. Thorne also has a much better run game to work with. So it’s hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison on these two.
On one hand, I am impressed with the way O’Connell goes through his reads, processes coverages, gets his back foot down, and the ball comes out, with zip and accuracy. When he completes passes, he looks better than your garden variety QB.
HOWEVER, he has thrown 8 INTs against 9 TDs. So although I like the assertiveness of his decision-making at times, there is some dirty bathwater.
Edge to Thorne, for now.
* Michigan State is much better at RB.
* Purdue’s top WR is different than Jayden Reed, but more prolific. Reed is likely a better deep threat. Slight edge to Bell in route running on the possession routes and intermediate routes. Those two are a little bit of an apples to oranges comparison. Both are very good.
* As for the other “other” WRs, Michigan State would have an edge here, if Nailor was available. Can Tre Mosley step up and deliver Nailor type of numbers? Can Montorie Foster step up and help? Those are key questions and unknowns. For now, I’ll call it a wash.
* Purdue is better at tight end when Payne Durham is available. If he doesn’t play, this is a wash, or an edge to Michigan State.
* MSU’s offensive line is better than Purdue’s although Purdue will surprise you at times with some decent run blocking.
Purdue’s LT was out last week. They moved their RT to LT, and the new RT was terrible in pass protection. Their regular LT is No. 69 Greg Long. If he is playing, their pass protection won’t be bad. If he isn’t playing, and Purdue has No. 68 at right tackle, then pass pro will be a big problem for Purdue on the right side vs Panasiuk all day.
LT 69 Long is supposed to play. He missed last week with a concussion.
* Overall, Michigan State’s o-line is better. Purdue looks shaky in pass pro at center.
* Purdue DE George Karlaftis MIGHT be better than Panasiuk, and Purdue’s other starting d-linemen are not bad, but MSU’s defensive line overall is better. And although Karlaftis is quite good, Panasiuk has just as much of a chance to have an impact on this game as Karlaftis.
* Purdue’s linebackers are decent. 43, the MLB, is a little slowish. Adam Decker type. Not bad. The other LB, 36, Alexander, is good, quick inside at 240 pounds.
MSU’s linebackers have been a little bit of a mixed bag. Too close to call.
* Purdue’s pass defense hasn’t faced many (any?) good passing attacks. Purdue has played four of the five worst passing teams in the Big Ten in terms of passing yards per game (Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin). So Purdue’s numbers are inflated.
I’m going to go with the eyeball test and the yards per pass attempt metric in saying that MSU’s pass defense is better than Purdue’s. That’s a wild departure from what total yards pass defense says (Purdue is No. 1 in the Big Ten in pass yards allowed per game and Michigan State is No. 14).
But Michigan State (No. 4) ranks ahead of Purdue (No. 10) in yards allowed per pass attempt in Big Ten games.
In overall games, Michigan State is No. 7 in the Big Ten in yards allowed per pass attempt and Purdue is No. 8.
Michigan State has the better pass rush.
Michigan State has better run-stoppers along the d-line.
MSU’s safeties and defensive backs support the run better than Purdue’s.
Purdue had major problems with the place kicker in each of the last two games, but he is 10-of-14 for the year, which is better than Matt Coghlin’s 10-of-15. I’ll go with Coghlin.
MSU’s net punting is No. 2 in the Big Ten; Purdue is No. 14.
DEALING WITH MICHIGAN STATE
The thing that has set Michigan State apart from its opponents thus far this season is the Spartans’ excellent balance on offense. Indiana was successful in containing Walker, although he was productive in the second half.
Michigan State learned from the Indiana game. Kapilovic said Indiana made Michigan State pause due to the Hoosiers’ pre-snap stemming and some of their post-snap movement, stunting, slanting.
Kapilovic said he had his o-line, especially center Matt Allen, enter the Michigan game with the mindset of trying to attack with MSU’s stuff, rather than trying to figure out what the opponent is in, and cat-and-mouse it.
Michigan surprised Michigan State with four down linemen to begin the game last week, as part of a 6-1 alignment, but Michigan State went with Kapilovic’s approach and just ran their stuff, with basic rules along the way, plus some new wrinkles sewn in later in the game.
Michigan State bashed Michigan for 199 yards rushing, with Michigan State tailbacks netting 205 yards rushing.
Michigan State’s run game is newly-energized. MSU’s o-line is confident and pumped up. Michigan State is supporting Walker for the Heisman, both in terms of marketing and teammate hype. But there’s a two-way street to that stuff. Purdue will be super-jacked to stop the Heisman candidate. That’s natural in college football. So can the Heisman candidate continue to produce when teams are stacked to stop him? Well, Michigan was stacked to stop him too. Michigan State met that challenge with relentlessness unknown to mankind.
Michigan State needs to keep the bus moving and execute another dropoff in West Lafayette.
Here’s The Deal: Purdue is a typically capable Big Ten defensive front. The d-end Karlaftis is good. I compare him to Kenny Willekes. Mel Kiper ranks him the No. 3 DE prospect in the country for the NFL Draft.
He’s good, but I wouldn’t say he’s a backfield wrecker. He’s not the every-down problem that Aidan Hutchinson was.
Purdue doesn’t have good depth on the d-line. Last week, second-string DE Jack Sullivan (99) played 32 snaps. He might have to start this week if first-stringer Kydran Jenkins can’t come back from a lower body injury sustained last week.
Purdue’s other reserve d-linemen played this many snaps against Nebraska: 16 (DT), 10 (DT), 2 (DE), 2 (DE).
Against Wisconsin, Purdue’s reserve d-linemen played this many snaps: 20, 20. That’s all. They had one reserve d-end and one reserve d-tackle.
If you take the starting DE (Jenkins) out of the equation, then Purdue has big, big problems in terms of defensive line depth.
Against Wisconsin, Purdue was sturdy for a little while, but got severely worn down against the run and caved badly in the second half. Wisconsin rushed for 290 yards. Wisconsin only had to attempt eight passes on the game (which is GREAT for Purdue’s seasonal pass defense stats).
Earier in the game, Purdue had a great goal line stand against Wisconsin, turning the Badgers away on first-and-goal at the 1-yard line in the 2Q. Purdue, with a six-man line, stuffed first down, then got a TFL on second down, then another TFL on an end around on third down.
If Michigan State commits to the run, and looks to establish its usual measure of balanced offense, the Spartans should find a pass defense that isn’t as good as the seasonal total stats, and the run game will pop into some daylight, increasingly so as the game progresses.
Purdue’s safeties take some faulty angles in run support and are not great tacklers. Purdue’s linebackers don’t have great speed sideline-to-sideline.
Purdue doesn’t not stay square as a unit and tackle with excellence the way Indiana does.
But Purdue will stem on their defensive line. They will change up their fronts, sometimes an odd 3-4 against Wisconsin.
MSU’s offensive front is more equipped to handle the changing looks this week than they were three weeks ago, and Walker has been retrained to mix in more north-and-south physicality than he displayed earlier in the season. I expect Walker’s Heisman candidacy to maintain momentum this week.
OTHER ITEMS
* Purdue’s center has struggled in pass protection a few times in the last two weeks. Could be a big day for Simeon Barrow.
* What Purdue does best, in my opinion, is hit you with triangle concepts in the passing game. That means three receivers getting to their spots quickly in one area of the coverage. They put little in-and-out stretches on you horizontally, with a high-low sewn in. If they get to their spots quickly, and the QB is on cue with them, it’s hard to stop the little pitch and catch. They hit and scatter to their areas quickly with some of their route combinations, and they move the chains with it, especially when incorporating Bell and the TE. It’s a solid little pass system.
* Purdue is reputed to try a lot of trick plays, but I didn’t see any (many) against Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska. They tried a flea flicker against Wisconsin but that’s hard to do when you don’t have a respectable run game.
* The run game was indeed respectable last week against Nebraska. So maybe that’s not the right word. It wasn’t great, but it wasn’t bad. Probably similar to Rutgers, although their top RB isn’t quite as good as Pacheco of Rutgers.
* Michigan State senior left tackle Luke Campbell struggled badly against Michigan. He has been good most of the year. In some games, he has been better than starting LT Jarrett Horst. Now, will Michigan State trust in going back to Campbell in relief, even with Karlaftis around? Good question.
* Purdue held Nebraska QB Adrian Martinez to 14 of 29 passing, but gave up 269 yards yards on those 14 completions. However, Purdue intercepted him four times.
* Nebraska QB Martinez was even sloppier than usual. He was a mess. Four INTs, including a pick-six.
* Nebraska rushed for 130 yards (4.5 per carry), 18 yards coming from the QB.
* Against Wisconsin, Purdue didn’t score in the second half. Wisconsin’s defense is good. Wisconsin is trending very hot right now in a Big Ten season that has had teams all over the map, up and down, with Michigan State being one exception so far.
* Purdue will use a pair of run-oriented QBs who come in and replace O’Connell for a handful of snaps per game. They will do speed option once or twice a game with those guys.
KEY PERSONNEL
QB 16 AIDAN O’CONNELL (6-3, 210, Sr., Long Grove, Ill.)
* Was a no-star recruit and walked on at Purdue. As a high school senior, completed 61 pct of his passes for 2,741 yards with 26 TDs and 7 INTs.
* Started the first three games last year, then missed the rest due to injury.
* Purdue is No. 3 in the Big Ten in pass offense at 307.1 yards per game, and No. 2 in conference games at 295.6 per game.
* O’Connell is a pocket passer, not very mobile. He stands back there, makes reads, is decisive, and accurate. Reminds me a little of former CMU QB Cooper Rush, another guy who had no scholarship interest coming out of high school. O’Connell might be a little more error-prone than Rush was.
* Was 34 of 45 for 233 last week at Nebraska with 2 TDs, 0 INTs, a long of 21 yards, and was sacked twice.
* Began the game last week 16 of 19 for 107 yards.
* His brain and arm seem to match well against Iowa. Was 31 of 50 for 282 with two TDs against Iowa last year and had a huge game against Iowa this year.
* Averaged 305.3 yards passing per game last year.
+ Excellent pass to Bell for 21 yards on a skinny post last week. Great job by O’Connell, play atcion out of the I formation, fakes the hand off, back foot plants, looks up Bell, ball comes out on time, ball in the air as Bell gets into his break, and zips it in there. Excellent route, excellent read and throw.
- After being sacked two times in the first half, O’Connell forced an out route to WR 29 Broc Thompson. He was well-covered and O’Connell left the ball inside a little too much.
* Was 15 of 20 in the first half against Wisconsin, but for just 107 yards with 2 INTs.
- His third INT was a third-and-11 against another 8-man coverage. The three-man rush started to get to him, he started to scramble and then he threw an INT on a Brett Farve shuffle attempt. That was with Purdue trailing 20-13 with 13:00 to play at the UW 30-yard line. Ouch. Tried to make a play, but that opened the negative dam.
* Wisconsin LB INT and 37-yard return to the 1-yard line late in the 1H out of an eight-man coverage.
* Purdue was competitive on the scoreboard up to that point thanks in part to a scoop and score TD by DE Karlaftis.
+ 10-yard TD pass to TE Payne Durham against Wisconsin. QB had time against a 3-man rush. Intricate route combination and TE popped wide open behind the LBs.
QB snaps vs Iowa:
O’Connell, 64 snaps, 40 passes
Plummer, 8 snaps, 2 passes, five QB rushes
Burton, 4 snaps, 1 pass, 3 QB rushes
WR 3 DAVID BELL (6-2, 205, Jr., Indianapolis Warren Central)
* Four-star recruit, ranked No. 95 in the nation. Also visited Indiana and Penn State.
* Leads the Big Ten in receiving yards per game at 112..3
* Is second in the Big Ten in receptions with 53 (trailing Penn State’s Jahan Dotson’s 60).
* Great route runner. Good at selling the deep one, and cutting on a dime.
* Will go with the possession and intermediate routes, then then out-and-up is coming in the second half.
* Beat Nebraska CB Taylor-Britt with a nice comeback for 13 yards, after selling the deep go. QB was right on time with an accurate ball.
* Brohm felt he didn’t move Bell around enough vs Wisconsin.
* Nine catches for 74 yards last week vs Nebraska.
* They like to use him as the No. 3 receiver. On third and four, if he gets a free release, they’ll run a little bitch for the first down yardage. He’s a possession receiver that way.
* Against Iowa, the Hawkeyes didn’t play as much zone as they normally do. I’m not sure if Purdue’s early success chased them out of zone or what. But they went man-to-man, and Bell burned them.
* No. 7-ranked WR NFL prospect by Mel Kiper.
* 11 catches, 240 yards against Iowa.
• Bell has surpassed 100 receiving yards in 14 of his 25 career games at Purdue. He has been under 100 yards in each of the past two games. Purdue pundits feel it's unlikely he will be held under 100 for a third straight week.
• Bell started his 2021 campaign with a 134-yard, eight-catch effort vs. Oregon State (Sept. 4) and a 121-yard, six-catch, three-touchdown outing at UConn (Sept. 11).
• Bell missed the Illinois (Sept. 25) game due to being in concussion protocol after the Notre Dame (Sept. 18) game.
WR 0 MILTON WRIGHT (6-3, 195, Jr., Louisville, Ky.)
* Was a four-star recruit, ranked No. 223 in the nation.
* Also had offers from Kentucky, Miami, Michigan State, Minnesota, Oregon, Ohio State, Alabama, Georgia.
* 32 catches, 3 TDs 39 yards receiving per game.
+ 3-yard TD last week on a mesh crosser wide open in the back of the end zone; Nebraska coverage bust.
* Is consistently between four and seven catches per game. His high yardage game of the year was 91 yards on six catches against Minnesota.
* Had 24 catches for 305 yards and two TDs last year.
WR 33 JACKSON ANTHROP (5-11, 190, Sr., West Lafayette)
* Two-star recruit, unranked. Purdue appears to be his only offer.
* 28 catches, 29 yards receiving per game.
* 6 cathes for 43 yards last week.
+ 11 yard gain on a slot out via the RPO last week in the 1Q.
RB 22 KING DOERUE (5-10, 205, Jr., Amarillo, Texas)
* Three-star recruit, No. 77 in Texas. Also visited Minnesota and Texas Tech.
* Hard-running guy, decently explosive.
* Rushed for 74 yards on 17 carries last week (4.4 per attempt) with a long of 13.
+ Nice 12 yard gain in the 2Q last week on a counter gap play with two pullers. Looked like a solid run team on that play.
* For the year, he has 363 yards rushing, 3.9 per, and 1 TD.
40 Zander Horvath (6-3, 230, Sr., Mishawaka, Ind.)
* Was their best RB earlier in the year. Injured his ankle, had surgery, returned last week.
* 11 carries for 25 yards last week (2.2 per).
* 2-yard TD run on third-and-goal last week. Purdue went to six offensive linemen on the play and zone-blocked it in out of shot gun.
* Has 113 yards on the year in three games played.
TE 87 PAYNE DURHAM (6-5, 255, Jr., Suwanee, Ga.)
* 5.5 Three-star recruit, also visited Duke and Missouri.
* Brohm makes it sound like he is doubtful for the game due to a late-game injury last week.
* Michigan State isn’t going to believe Brohm and they prepared expecting 87 to be out there.
* Second-leading receiver with 36 catches for 356 yards, 4 TDs, a candidate for first-team All-Big Ten honors.
* Good, reliable big target with pretty good athleticism. O’Connell likes to read short to long, and a lot of times Durham is open early.
+ 10-yard TD reception against Wisconsin. QB had time against a 3-man rush. Intricate route combination and TE popped wide open behind the LBs.
+ 24 yard catch on skinny route to the seam.
* Honorable mention All-Big Ten last year (16 receptions).
* If he’s available and his normal self, then this game becomes tougher for Michigan State. I could see his availability, or lack thereof, having a three-point impact on the point spread.
* Remember, if No. 69 in playing left tackle, then Purdue’s offensive line is much better off. If he’s out and No. 74 has to play LT, that means No. 68 plays RT. Panasiuk would dominate No. 68 (Cam Craig).
PURDUE EFENSE
DE 5 GEORGE KARLAFTIS (6-4, 275, West Lafayette, Ind.)
* Four-star recruit, rankd No. 137 in the nation. Also visited USC.
* No. 3-ranked WR NFL prospect by Mel Kiper.
* Second team All-Big Ten last year.
* His inside pass rush move isn’t as good as Aidan Hutchinson’s.
* Against the run, not as firm as Hutchinson or Kenny Willekes. But those are high comparisons. This guy is quite good.
* Has three sacks on the year.
* He will play as a stand-up DE from time to time.
* In 23 career collegiate games, Karlaftis has 25.5 tackles-for-loss and 12.5 sacks.
* Named a semifinalist for the Chuck Bednarik Award.
* Defeated a TE last week with a strong shoulder swipe, closed for a QB hit in the 2Q.
* Not the greatest discipline in run defense on one occasion last week. Didn’t squeeze down with a split flow block coming right at him, RB got out for a gain of 15 last week.
DE 44 KYDRAN JENKINS (6-1, 270, Fr., Louisville, Ga.)
* 5.6 three-star recruit, also had offers from Missouri, App State, Western Kentucky.
* Brohm said “not optimistic on that one” on Thursday about Jenkins’ availability for this game.
* Good looking player for the future.
* Stand up DE at times
* Sack in the 3Q after Nebraska’s crappy LT 69 got beat.
+ Solid job vs the run at the point of attack vs a TE, setting the edge for no gain, but was injured on the play in the 3Q. Lower body injury. Helped off the field with a hobble.
+ Sack in the 3Q against Wisconsin in the third quarter, defeated the LT with an outside move that didn’t seem special, but he his legs were churning.
* 90 Lawrence Johnson and 58 Deen Branson are good, sturdy DTs inside, but they don’t get any relief.
SAM 6 JALEN GRAHAM (6-3, 200, Jr., Detroit Cass Tech)
* 5.6 three-star safety prospect, ranked No. 17 in Michigan. October commitment.
* Also had offers from Boston College, Cincinnati, Indiana, Iowa State, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Pitt, Missouri, Rutgers, Syracuse.
* Blasted the blocking RB on a pass rush last week for a QB pressure in the 1Q but missed the sack. Good power through the block attempt.
• Returned an INT 45 yards for a touchdown. Dropping into zone, it was a simple INT against double slants to tie the game at 7-7. Error by QB Martinez.
+ His second INT, again just sitting in zone and Martinez was getting heat from Karlaftis, getting his jersey tugged, and Martinez attempted a Brett Farve backhand shovel. Ill-advised by Martinez.
• Graham's performance at Nebraska, which included two interceptions, helped him earn Big Ten Conference Defensive Player of the Week, announced on Monday, Nov. 1
MLB 43 KIEREN DOUGLAS (6-2, 240, Sr., Pickerington, Ohio)
* Average to below-average lateral quickness.
* Transfer from Army.
* Adam Decker type of MLB. Gritty, pretty dependable, not the most athletic.
WILL 36 JAYLAN ALEXANDER (6-1, 240, Sr., Hoffman Estates, Ill.)
* Was a 5.5 three-star recruit. Had MAC offers.
* Purdue’s leading tackler.
- Not a great job by Alexander vs a pull guard while safety Grant tried to scrape over the top for the tackle. Alexander not great, and safety Grant missed the tackle, Nebraska RB got outside for a gain of 35.
+ Good job reading gaps and arriving with some force. Solid stick on the Wisconsin RB on an inside run in the 1Q.
+ 10 tackles against Iowa.
* Quality ILB.
+ TFL loss of four on run blitz against Wisconsin.
CB 1 DEDRICK MACKEY (5-11, 190, Sr. Miami)
* 5.7 three-star recruit. Also visited Cincinnati and South Florida
- Allowed 43 yards on a deep post last week vs off man-to-man. Got caught looking back for the ball too early.
S 10 CAM ALLEN (6-1, 195, JR., Bluefield Va.)
* 5.6 three star recruit, No. 20 in Virginia.
* Also had offers from mid-majors and Virginia.
* Honorable mention All-Big Ten last year.
* Pretty good lateral movement, dropped what would have been a pick six short route last week.
- Missed a tackle on a slot out route at the 10-yard line, allowing a 16-yard TD last week.
* Pretty good hitter.
- Was beaten on a deep post by 5 yards late in the 1H last week but QB Martinez overthrew the WR by a step. Should have been a demoralizing 52-yard TD at intermission and a 24-14 Husker lead.
On that play: very stupid job by Purdue to have an extra man in the box and a second run-sniffing safety up at the LB level after the snap, and essentially a zero coverage without a blitz, when Nebraska had it first-and-10 at the -47 with :20 left in the half. Had to have been an assignment error. No way they’re that stupid.
- Missed tackle on a safety blitz, resulted in 20-yard TD run for Wisconsin.
S 4 MARVIN GRANT (6-2, 190, Soph., Detroit King)
* Was a four-star recruit, No. 138 in the nation, No. 6 in Michigan.
* No opinion, other than his failed scrape on a 35-yard run last week.
* Played as a reserve last year.
CB 7 JAMARI BROWN (6-3, 205, Jr., Sunrise, Fla./Pampano Beach Ely)
* 5.6 three-star recruit, originally signed with Kentucky over Auburn, Illinois, Pitt, Oregon, South Carolina and others.
* Started three games at Kentucky in 2019. Hampered by a hamstring last year at Kentucky.
* No opinion.
ADD IT ALL UP
The shaky Michigan State that was a bit mistake-prone against Rutgers and Indiana would not win this game at Purdue. You have to assume that Michigan State grew during its preparation for Michigan, and it’s success against the Wolverines, and in the preparation in coming out of that game.
Teams are still developing, or regressing, even in the final one-third of the season. QB McNamara showed no signs of being able to read the middle of the field and deliver like he did last week. We knew he had the arm talent, but had not demonstrated the ability to read and deliver accurately on intermediate routes. And we didn’t know anything about Andrel Anthony.
Also, we hadn’t seen the Michigan State o-line block that intricately, and even Heisman Trophy candidate Kenneth Walker III continues to polish his game, with more inside aggression.
Now, Michigan State needs Tre Mosley and Montorie Foster to take it up a notch in the expected absence of Jalen Nailor.
MSU’s pass rush was quiet last week. It’s imperative that that group makes noise this week, and upset the pocket and rhythm of a quality passer like O’Connell.
Michigan State won’t stand pat in pass defense. They will likely look for ways to cover for Grose, and prevent him from getting into matchups in the slot against Bell. What that looks like, I don’t know. Will Michigan State drop eight like Wisconsin? Will Michigan State revert to bend-but-don’t-break softness along the sidelines like they did against Miami? I don’t know. But I wouldn’t expect as much man-to-man as last week.
Purdue will try to establish the run like it did last week at Nebraska. Can Michigan State stop it with the standard number while keeping two safeties back? If so, good step toward victory for Michigan State.
Will TE Payne Durham be available for Purdue? He’s a very important No. 2 man for O’Connell.
Overall, it’s a good, competitive Big Ten football game with College Football Playoff and Heisman Trophy implications on the line for Michigan State. Purdue will be jacked, but Michigan State’s balance on offense, and depth on defense gives the Spartans an edge.
If Purdue’s d-end Jenkins (44) can’t play and you see 99 starting instead, realize that Purdue’s thin d-line will be prone to wearing down against the run in the second half. A big second half on the ground from Walker is probable.
Purdue has forced some turnovers this year, but I don’t think Thorne will be prone to the same type of mistakes.
MSU’s conditioning edge in the fourth quarter seems to be a real, consistent thing, and it’s a good trump card to carry into the fourth quarter.
Purdue has great program history of pulling upsets like this one. Michigan State has so much to lose, and Purdue is a pretty good team that will be jacked up to shock the nation. But MSU’s tunnel vision to this point in the season is a good sign, as are MSU’s relative good health and depth, and an overall edge in offensive balance and athleticism and physicality. It should combine to provide the proper firewall in a difficult, dangerous test.
Michigan State vs Purdue
By Jim Comparoni
SpartanMag.com Publisher
West Lafayette, Ind. - The last time Purdue played a national Top 5 team, the Boilermakers stunned No. 2 Iowa, 24-7, in Iowa City.
Iowa turned out to be a one-dimensional team which peaked in September.
But Purdue (5-3 overall and 3-2 in the Big Ten) showed some things on that day that creates reason for concern for No. 3-ranked Michigan State this week. Enough concern that head coach Mel Tucker ramped up his level of intensity just a bit during his weekly press conference, just a small sample of the urgency he put on his team and staff this week. Things have been hot at the Skandalaris Center this week because the Spartans have become a cool national story, and Tucker doesn’t want the momentum to hit a wall. Michigan State hasn’t been 8-0 since 1966. Programs don’t get opportunities like this very often. Maybe Miami and Indiana didn’t turn out to be as good as we thought in the preseason, maybe Michigan was better than expected, maybe Michigan State didn’t deserve to beat Nebraska. That stuff doesn’t matter. What matters is Michigan State is 8-0, the hottest college football story in the country (outside of Georgia), and it can’t afford to let this house money be squandered away by the Spoilermakers.
The good news for Michigan State is that the Spartans harnessed a level of improvement last week, as Michigan State often does in the face of its rivalry game against Michigan.
The Spartans’ ground defense went from pretty good to very good against one of the top rushing outfits in the country.
MSU’s ground offense went from shaky in its previous outing at Indiana to excellent against the Wolverines, thanks not only to the recharged battery of Kenneth Walker III, but also smarter, more efficient run blocking from the offensive line and tight ends.
The blocks by tight ends Connor Heyward and Tyler Hunt during Walker’s 58-yard TD run in the second half were a high water mark for those two guys. They were good most of the day. (They were awful against Nebraska).
And during Walker’s TKO 23-yard TD run in the final minutes, Kevin Jarvis dominated Michigan’s second-string defensive tackle on that play, sealing him to the outside while right tackle AJ Arcuri folded inside and double-teamed a defensive tackle with precision.
The blocking on the 23-yard TD was all well and good, but Michigan State also needed Walker to trust the blocking and run to the smoke. Michigan State o-line coach and run game coordinator Chris Kapilovic said as great as Walker had played in the games leading up to last week, they wanted him to trust the blocking schemes a little more in some situations.
That was one such situation.
It was third-and-three, in the red zone. Even if Walker had been stopped on that play, the Spartans needed a yard or two to set up a choice of going for it on fourth down. That decision never had to be made as Walker hit the A-gap with quickness and forward intensity. The hole wasn’t super wide, but there was daylight when the smoke cleared, and he raced through it like a revolving door.
Michigan State looked pretty good on tape to the Wolverine defense, if they were honest with themselves. But that play, its precision and north-and-south attitude, and the blocking of those tight ends, were examples of a fine-tuning process which dropped on the Wolverines last week.
Also, let the record show that Michigan State was the stronger, better-conditioned team in the fourth quarter once again - repeating a trend that could and should make the Spartans more-equipped to protect leads in the late going, add to them, or forge comebacks.
As for areas that need tightening of the screws:
Michigan State’s pass defense has given up big figures all year in terms of total yardage, but not always in terms of yards per pass attempt, and usually not in terms of touchdowns.
Michigan not only put up big yards through the air, the Wolverines also notched three passing TDs.
The Spartans need to get back to being a decent pass defense in terms of yards allowed per pass attempt, and - more importantly - a quality pass defense in the red zone.
Last week, Michigan targeted safety Angelo Grose and victimized him when they were able to get him in one-on-one matchups in the slot in man-to-man. At SpartanMag.com, we have been highly complimentary of Grose’s physicality, intensity and ability to play the run. But dating back to preseason camp, and problems against Youngstown State, we said that teams would target No. 15 and he needed to prove he could withstand the attention.
No opponent made a concerted effort to target Grose until Michigan did last week, and it was nearly the foundation of a Wolverine victory. Even the incomplete pass into the end zone on third-and-three on Michigan’s next-to-last drive resulted in Grose being beat on a slot fade to the corner by a step and a half, only to end with QB Cade McNamara overthrowing his open target.
Now comes Purdue’s David Bell, the Big Ten’s most prolific pass receiver, and a Boilermaker passing attack that is mostly a ball-control, intermediate, possession type of passing attack, but one that is averaging 307 yards passing per game in Big Ten play, ranking No. 3 in the conference.
Screws need to be tightened in pass defense. Grose needs to get the best out of his quickness and maximize his knowledge and ability to anticipate.
MSU’s pass rush needs to be more effective than a week ago. And MSU’s offense can’t take a step backward from last week’s progress in the run game, and the offensive balance that has been the cornerstone for MSU’s historic (to this point) 8-0 start and reemergence into national relevancy.
I haven’t covered many teams that have been unbeaten in October. But one thing I noticed was that unbeaten teams received heightened challenges from each subsequent opponent. I saw it at Purdue in 1999, at Iowa in 2010 and at Nebraska in 2015. None of those were played during the ninth game of the season. The intensity, opportunity, and proneness will grow this weekend at Ross-Ade Stadium.
FINAL ANALYSIS FIRST
You’re fully aware of all those intangibles that have gained credence over time. Like last week, Michigan State was coming off a bye week, which likely aided the Spartans’ preparation and physicality. Same with Indiana the week before, against Michigan State. And Purdue had the bye week prior to its upset of Iowa (which doesn’t seem like much of an upset anymore). Now, Michigan State is battling the other age-old intangible, the let-down after a major breakthrough win.
Michigan State was good the week after playing Michigan in the Dantonio era. Now, Mel Tucker has to prove he’s good the week after the Michigan game. Last year, not so good, in a 49-7 loss at Iowa.
Tucker is saying all the right things, making all the right demands this week. We’ll see if it works against a Purdue team coming of a man-sized win at Nebraska, fully expecting to be the better team on Saturday against the Spartans.
KEY MATCHUP
Purdue offers a mixture of a precise, smart QB, a cast of decent receivers headlined by a terrific route runner in WR David Bell, an excellent pass-catching tight end (who might not be available), and tricky short-area route combinations that are difficult to cover.
Purdue QB Aidan O’Connell began last week’s game 16 of 19 for 107 yards. Not a lot of yards. Not a lot of incompletions.
He began the Wisconsin game 15-of-20, again for just 107 yards (but with two INTs sewn in).
O’Connell and Bell destroyed Iowa’s vaunted pass defense in a 24-7 victory over the Hawkeyes.
O’Connell was 30 of 40 for 375 yards with 2 TDs and 0 interceptions at Iowa.
Bell had 11 catches for 240 yards.
Those numbers are absurd, considering Iowa’s terrific pass defense.
However, Purdue did a good job early on of picking-apart Iowa’s zones. Iowa didn’t get heat on the QB. Iowa changed up and played more man-to-man than I’ve seen from them in awhile, maybe years, maybe ever, and Purdue - already in a confident rhythm - started nailing the Hawkeyes with Bell against that man-to-man. It was a nauseating experience for Iowa, and the Hawkeyes haven’t recovered.
So now we have a quality, ball-control style Purdue passing attack against a loose-screw Michigan State pass defense. That’s strength against weakness, right?
Well, I’m not sure MSU’s pass defense can be dismissed week after week as a weakness against all types of pass offenses. I think MSU’s pass defense has a chance to improve. Cornerback play has been pretty good, although chester Kimbrough got turned inside out in quarters coverage in the red zone on a good double move to the corner by Andrel Anthony for 17 yards. Kimbrough might have been caught keying the run a little too hard, with run-oriented UM QB JJ McCarthy on the field at that time.
Kimbrough was replaced by freshman Charles Brantley soon after that play.
Michigan made it 30-14 on a 19-yard pass (on third-and-9), to WR Mike Sanristil. On that play, Michigan State showed zone at pre-snap, but morphed into man-to-man. Michigan State brought a five-man rush. The pass rush didn’t get home, although Jacub Panasiuk (playing right DE rather than left DE) did beat the left guard and put a hand on QB McNamara as he threw. [Michigan State moved Panasiuk to the right side, and slanted him inside to go against UM’s worst pass protecter, LG Keegan, while Michigan State blitzed LB Haladay at the left tackle. Good plan, but it didn’t get home in time.]
With Michigan State in man-to-man, it put Grose on Sanristil in the slot. Michigan was making one read by this point in the game, in a lot of situations. They were reading the No. 3 WR (the third receiver from the sideline), if and when he matched up with Grose in man-to-man. Period.
(Same thing on the 43-yarder to Sanristil in the fourth quarter on third-and-long after Michigan State had tied the game at 30-30 and had all the momentum).
Could Michigan State have operated differently on that TD pass to Sanristil? There are always different choices and options.
On that play, Michigan State went with one CB to the left and one CB to the right. Michigan had three WRs to its left and only a TE (attached to the offensive line) to the right.
Michigan State could have put both CBs to the three-WR side in a “corners over” look. I haven’t seen Michigan State do that yet this year. Under Mark Dantonio, Michigan State would do that from time to time, but rarely. They would only do it if the opponent had a truly problematic matchup at WR.
On the TD pass to Sanristil, Michigan State kept one CB to the left and one CB to the right, even against the 3 by 1 formation (with the 1 being a tight end), because that approach almost always indicates zone defense. Why keep a CB (Ronald Williams) on the TE side? Almost certainly that CB is going to drop into zone coverage at the snap rather than “wasting” a CB on a TE, right?
Well, Williams has the size to matchup with a TE. Secondly, Michigan favors passing to the TE on third down, so you couldn’t fault Michigan State for showing zone, but then keeping a big CB on Michigan’s favorite third-down pass target, while morphing into man.
That’s all well and good, when you can bank on your safety (Grose) playing good man-to-man coverage on a WR on a crossing route if your blitz doesn’t get home.
Michigan State isn’t “there yet” in terms of having all boxes checked in pass defense.
Michigan State is a good team, deserving of being ranked No. 3 in the country at this point. But there are more tests to come, and at some point, teams with better passing attacks than Michigan are going to present MSU’s pass defense with severe examinations.
Purdue has a good passing attack. In some ways (QB reads and consistent accuracy), it’s a better passing attack than Michigan’s. However, Purdue does not have the run game threat that the Wolverines had, which preoccupied Kimbrough on that TD pass to Anthony. Purdue also does not have Michigan’s pass protection.
Michigan State is still searching for the best version of itself in pass defense. Michigan State needs better LB coverage, especially when being stretched horizontally to the sideline. MSU’s LBs need to be on time and more effective when asked to blitz. Quavaris Crouch was late on one expensive occasion last week. He has the capacity to be an excellent pass rusher. Those screws need to get tightened.
Those of you who don’t like the bend-but-don’t-break defense brand of defense Michigan State has played for most of the season. Well, on third-and-medium during Michigan’s first possession last week, Michigan State played man-to-man. A bend-but-don’t-break approach would have been to go with a two-deep zone and permit Michigan to throw underneath, hit them hard, challenge Michigan State to throw accurately, catch the ball and remain patient and disciplined for along drive. Instead, Michigan State went man-to-man. Not a bend-but-don’t-break approach. Michigan hit a little crossing route that got out for a 93-yard TD.
You sure you don’t like bend-but-don’t-break?
In this game against Purdue, you might see Michigan State return to its bend-but-don’t-break roots, not because Michigan State wants to play that way, but because Michigan State is still getting its pieces in order, even this late in the season, and for good reason because Williams, Kimbrough and gimpy Marqui Lowery are still in their first season as regulars at the major college level, and Brantley is still a rookie, and Grose is still new to his position. And Michigan State coaches are still weighing whether they can put Grose on an island vs slot receivers and play man-to-man.
A bend-but-don’t-break approach to pass defense challenges a passing attack to remain disciplined and patient. Purdue is very disciplined and patient.
The question is how much respect Michigan State pays to David Bell. Michigan State paid huge respect to WR Rambo of Miami back in September, and played soft along the sidelines to prevent him from getting deep. Michigan State gave up a lot of easy completions and yardage, but no big plays, and held Miami to 17 points.
MSU’s pass defense has grown since then. Michigan State hasn’t been as “careful” against other opponents, but maybe should have been more careful against the Wolverines. That being said, Michigan State had no film and very little scouting report on Anthony - and he was a major difference-maker in the first 40 minutes of that game.
So will Michigan State pay Rambo-like respect to Bell? Bell is more of a possession type receiver than Rambo. However, Bell WILL put a double move on you and attempt to get deep at some point. But he’s more of a quick-angle type of receiver.
Purdue will move Bell from the slot, to the wide man, from left to right. After losing to Wisconsin, Purdue head coach Jeff Brohm said he erred in not moving Bell around more against the Badgers. He also said he needed to incorporate more run game into the offense.
Purdue had been averaging less than 80 yards rushing per game prior to last week’s game at Nebraska. Then Purdue came out and ran the ball on three of its first four plays against Nebraska, and continued to be run-heavy with play selection for much of the first half. Purdue had a season-high 41 rushing attempts against Nebraska (for just 2.8 yads per carry), but rushed for 116 and established enough balance to get more burn out of their play-action game.
Despite being a pass-heavy team, Purdue will strangely operate out of an I-formation, under center, several times in each game. Brohm obviously wants to incorporate the I-formation, but in order to make that thing work in play-action passing, the Purdue run game MUST be a threat. However, it has not been much of a threat this year.
So if you’re Michigan State, coming off a terrific week of run defense, can you stop the Purdue running attack while playing with two deep safeties over the top? Or do you need to commit a safety to run defense like Michigan State did last week, while leaving the pass defense windows more dangerously open?
Michigan State will probably try all of the above. As to which one they stick with, and which one works, you will find out when I do. But like I said, Michigan State doesn’t have to remain a shaky pass defense team. They are still a work in progress in this area.
Will Michigan State be more apt to play “corners over” against Bell on third downs? That almost always indicates man-to-man, but Michigan State might be willing to concede that pre-snap tipoff in order to get a preferred cover man on Bell.
Or could Michigan State show “corners over” but drop into zone? That’s sophisticated stuff, which entails asking a CB to show man coverage in the slot but drop and become a safety, and all the assignments a safety has in zone coverage route recognition. Michigan State might not be “there” yet.
If Michigan State plans to play man-to-man at key junctures like it did last week, and allow Purdue to force a matchup against Grose, that doesn’t seem like it would be smart. Michigan State might do it from time to time, just to mix tendencies, and hope the pass rush gets home in time. But it wouldn’t seem advisable for Michigan State to stick with Grose vs the No. 3 WR when in man-to-man against four-WR formations throughout the day. Maybe here and there, but not all day. If you do it all day, then Purdue can force that match-up by formation, if you’re in man-to-man.
Basically, Michigan State has some weaknesses. Purdue has some strengths. Michigan State needs to mitigate opportunities for those strengths to match up against those weaknesses.
Or you can avoid all of that by sticking mostly to zone, like you did against Miami. But fans will need to stomach number from O’Connell which could start to look like 20-for-23 or things of that nature.
My guess is that Michigan State mixes it up. Michigan State will play more zone than last week, more bend-but-don’t-break than last week, but Michigan State won’t totally vacate man-to-man coverages. When Michigan State goes to man-to-man, the Spartans need the pass rush to get home. And I suspect we will see less man-to-man the further Purdue’s offense is away from the end zone. Might not be a good idea to play man-to-man when Purdue has it third-and-eight at their own 20-yard line. Bend. Bend. I suspect that’s the trek Michigan State will need to take.
A key component to this Purdue pass offense vs Michigan State pass defense is the Boilermaker tight end.
The tight end is Payne Durham, 6-5, 255, from Suwanee, Ga. He is excellent. He was honorable mention All-Big Ten last year.
He is the second-leading receiver on the team with 36 catches and four TDs, 50.8 receiving yards per game.
He had seven catches against Wisconsin in the first two-and-a-half quarters.
However, he went down with an injury late in the Nebraska game. Brohm spoke about injuries last night after practice.
"Payne, we're not optimistic on that one," said Brohm. “He's a tough son of a gun and he plays hard and he gives us everything that he has, but he's banged up. That would be a blow if he can't go. He's done a great job and is a consistent player."
The back-up TE, Garrett Miller, missed the Nebraska game. He has seven catches on the year. He is questionable for this weekend.
"Slight chance," said Brohm. "Garrett, we're trying to get back, so we'll see."
According to GoldandBlack.com, Purdue was without No. 3 tight end Kyle Bilodeau last week, but Brohm is hopeful the sophomore will be back. Another tight, junior Jack Cravaack, already is out for the year with a knee injury. Sophomore Paul Piferi--a former quarterback--is another option at tight end along with redshirt freshman walk-on Ben Buechel.
WATCH FOR THIS
Wisconsin handcuffed Purdue’s pass offense by dropping eight into coverage, especially on third down. O’Connell was frustrated by the lack of openings. Bell had six catches for only 33 yards against the Badgers, with a long of 10 yards.
O’Connell repeatedly had to check down to TE Durham (9 catches 112 yards with 1 TD and a long of 24).
Meanwhile, Wisconsin intercepted O’Connell three times, and had six sacks. Purdue rushed for a net of -13 against the Badgers.
Michigan State hasn’t been much of a rush three/drop eight defense under Mel Tucker. But if you see it this weekend, know that it has roots in Purdue’s loss to Wisconsin.
STATS AND BACKGROUND
Before we get into other matchups, let’s look at the numbers and results to this point:
Purdue results
W vs Oregon State, 30-21
W at UConn, 49-0
L at Notre Dame, 27-13
W vs Illinois, 13-9
L vs Minnesota, 20-13
W at Iowa, 24-7
L vs Wisconsin, 30-13
W at Nebraska, 28-23
* Coach Jeff Brohm is 24-28 in his fifth season at Purdue.
* After beating Iowa, Purdue moved up to No. 25 in the rankings. That was the first time Purdue had been ranked since 2007. But Purdue lost to Wisconsin and remains unranked. Beat Michigan State, and Purdue will be back in the Top 25 next week.
THE STATS
Big Ten Rankings (in conference games only)
Purdue Offense
No. 10 in scoring offense (22.9 per game)
(Michigan State is No. 3 (34.6))
No. 8 in yards per play
(Michigan State is No. 2)
No. 14 in rush yards per play (2.5)
(Michigan State is No. 2 at 5.4)
No. 8 in pass yards per play (6.3)
(Michigan State is No. 3 at 8.8)
No. 5 in third down conversion pct (42.1)
(Michigan State is No. 12 (35.8))
Purdue Defense
No. 5 in scoring defense (17.1)
(Michigan State is No. 9 (20.5))
No. 7 in yards allowed per play
(Michigan State is No. 8)
No. 8 in rushing yards allowed per play (4.0)
(Michigan State is No. 5 (3.4))
No. 8 in pass yards allowed per play (6.7)
(Michigan State is No. 7 (6.4))
No. 4 in third down conversion pct (33.3)
(Michigan State is No. 12 (39.9))
[Ohio State is No. 13, by the way, 43.7]
APPLES TO APPLES
Purdue’s QB is good, but I would give the nod to Thorne. I’m not sure I’m married to that opinion. Both are good. Thorne has had a wider array of WRs to work with, but now Thorne is likely to be without Jalen Nailor, who injured his hand last week. Thorne also has a much better run game to work with. So it’s hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison on these two.
On one hand, I am impressed with the way O’Connell goes through his reads, processes coverages, gets his back foot down, and the ball comes out, with zip and accuracy. When he completes passes, he looks better than your garden variety QB.
HOWEVER, he has thrown 8 INTs against 9 TDs. So although I like the assertiveness of his decision-making at times, there is some dirty bathwater.
Edge to Thorne, for now.
* Michigan State is much better at RB.
* Purdue’s top WR is different than Jayden Reed, but more prolific. Reed is likely a better deep threat. Slight edge to Bell in route running on the possession routes and intermediate routes. Those two are a little bit of an apples to oranges comparison. Both are very good.
* As for the other “other” WRs, Michigan State would have an edge here, if Nailor was available. Can Tre Mosley step up and deliver Nailor type of numbers? Can Montorie Foster step up and help? Those are key questions and unknowns. For now, I’ll call it a wash.
* Purdue is better at tight end when Payne Durham is available. If he doesn’t play, this is a wash, or an edge to Michigan State.
* MSU’s offensive line is better than Purdue’s although Purdue will surprise you at times with some decent run blocking.
Purdue’s LT was out last week. They moved their RT to LT, and the new RT was terrible in pass protection. Their regular LT is No. 69 Greg Long. If he is playing, their pass protection won’t be bad. If he isn’t playing, and Purdue has No. 68 at right tackle, then pass pro will be a big problem for Purdue on the right side vs Panasiuk all day.
LT 69 Long is supposed to play. He missed last week with a concussion.
* Overall, Michigan State’s o-line is better. Purdue looks shaky in pass pro at center.
* Purdue DE George Karlaftis MIGHT be better than Panasiuk, and Purdue’s other starting d-linemen are not bad, but MSU’s defensive line overall is better. And although Karlaftis is quite good, Panasiuk has just as much of a chance to have an impact on this game as Karlaftis.
* Purdue’s linebackers are decent. 43, the MLB, is a little slowish. Adam Decker type. Not bad. The other LB, 36, Alexander, is good, quick inside at 240 pounds.
MSU’s linebackers have been a little bit of a mixed bag. Too close to call.
* Purdue’s pass defense hasn’t faced many (any?) good passing attacks. Purdue has played four of the five worst passing teams in the Big Ten in terms of passing yards per game (Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin). So Purdue’s numbers are inflated.
I’m going to go with the eyeball test and the yards per pass attempt metric in saying that MSU’s pass defense is better than Purdue’s. That’s a wild departure from what total yards pass defense says (Purdue is No. 1 in the Big Ten in pass yards allowed per game and Michigan State is No. 14).
But Michigan State (No. 4) ranks ahead of Purdue (No. 10) in yards allowed per pass attempt in Big Ten games.
In overall games, Michigan State is No. 7 in the Big Ten in yards allowed per pass attempt and Purdue is No. 8.
Michigan State has the better pass rush.
Michigan State has better run-stoppers along the d-line.
MSU’s safeties and defensive backs support the run better than Purdue’s.
Purdue had major problems with the place kicker in each of the last two games, but he is 10-of-14 for the year, which is better than Matt Coghlin’s 10-of-15. I’ll go with Coghlin.
MSU’s net punting is No. 2 in the Big Ten; Purdue is No. 14.
DEALING WITH MICHIGAN STATE
The thing that has set Michigan State apart from its opponents thus far this season is the Spartans’ excellent balance on offense. Indiana was successful in containing Walker, although he was productive in the second half.
Michigan State learned from the Indiana game. Kapilovic said Indiana made Michigan State pause due to the Hoosiers’ pre-snap stemming and some of their post-snap movement, stunting, slanting.
Kapilovic said he had his o-line, especially center Matt Allen, enter the Michigan game with the mindset of trying to attack with MSU’s stuff, rather than trying to figure out what the opponent is in, and cat-and-mouse it.
Michigan surprised Michigan State with four down linemen to begin the game last week, as part of a 6-1 alignment, but Michigan State went with Kapilovic’s approach and just ran their stuff, with basic rules along the way, plus some new wrinkles sewn in later in the game.
Michigan State bashed Michigan for 199 yards rushing, with Michigan State tailbacks netting 205 yards rushing.
Michigan State’s run game is newly-energized. MSU’s o-line is confident and pumped up. Michigan State is supporting Walker for the Heisman, both in terms of marketing and teammate hype. But there’s a two-way street to that stuff. Purdue will be super-jacked to stop the Heisman candidate. That’s natural in college football. So can the Heisman candidate continue to produce when teams are stacked to stop him? Well, Michigan was stacked to stop him too. Michigan State met that challenge with relentlessness unknown to mankind.
Michigan State needs to keep the bus moving and execute another dropoff in West Lafayette.
Here’s The Deal: Purdue is a typically capable Big Ten defensive front. The d-end Karlaftis is good. I compare him to Kenny Willekes. Mel Kiper ranks him the No. 3 DE prospect in the country for the NFL Draft.
He’s good, but I wouldn’t say he’s a backfield wrecker. He’s not the every-down problem that Aidan Hutchinson was.
Purdue doesn’t have good depth on the d-line. Last week, second-string DE Jack Sullivan (99) played 32 snaps. He might have to start this week if first-stringer Kydran Jenkins can’t come back from a lower body injury sustained last week.
Purdue’s other reserve d-linemen played this many snaps against Nebraska: 16 (DT), 10 (DT), 2 (DE), 2 (DE).
Against Wisconsin, Purdue’s reserve d-linemen played this many snaps: 20, 20. That’s all. They had one reserve d-end and one reserve d-tackle.
If you take the starting DE (Jenkins) out of the equation, then Purdue has big, big problems in terms of defensive line depth.
Against Wisconsin, Purdue was sturdy for a little while, but got severely worn down against the run and caved badly in the second half. Wisconsin rushed for 290 yards. Wisconsin only had to attempt eight passes on the game (which is GREAT for Purdue’s seasonal pass defense stats).
Earier in the game, Purdue had a great goal line stand against Wisconsin, turning the Badgers away on first-and-goal at the 1-yard line in the 2Q. Purdue, with a six-man line, stuffed first down, then got a TFL on second down, then another TFL on an end around on third down.
If Michigan State commits to the run, and looks to establish its usual measure of balanced offense, the Spartans should find a pass defense that isn’t as good as the seasonal total stats, and the run game will pop into some daylight, increasingly so as the game progresses.
Purdue’s safeties take some faulty angles in run support and are not great tacklers. Purdue’s linebackers don’t have great speed sideline-to-sideline.
Purdue doesn’t not stay square as a unit and tackle with excellence the way Indiana does.
But Purdue will stem on their defensive line. They will change up their fronts, sometimes an odd 3-4 against Wisconsin.
MSU’s offensive front is more equipped to handle the changing looks this week than they were three weeks ago, and Walker has been retrained to mix in more north-and-south physicality than he displayed earlier in the season. I expect Walker’s Heisman candidacy to maintain momentum this week.
OTHER ITEMS
* Purdue’s center has struggled in pass protection a few times in the last two weeks. Could be a big day for Simeon Barrow.
* What Purdue does best, in my opinion, is hit you with triangle concepts in the passing game. That means three receivers getting to their spots quickly in one area of the coverage. They put little in-and-out stretches on you horizontally, with a high-low sewn in. If they get to their spots quickly, and the QB is on cue with them, it’s hard to stop the little pitch and catch. They hit and scatter to their areas quickly with some of their route combinations, and they move the chains with it, especially when incorporating Bell and the TE. It’s a solid little pass system.
* Purdue is reputed to try a lot of trick plays, but I didn’t see any (many) against Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska. They tried a flea flicker against Wisconsin but that’s hard to do when you don’t have a respectable run game.
* The run game was indeed respectable last week against Nebraska. So maybe that’s not the right word. It wasn’t great, but it wasn’t bad. Probably similar to Rutgers, although their top RB isn’t quite as good as Pacheco of Rutgers.
* Michigan State senior left tackle Luke Campbell struggled badly against Michigan. He has been good most of the year. In some games, he has been better than starting LT Jarrett Horst. Now, will Michigan State trust in going back to Campbell in relief, even with Karlaftis around? Good question.
* Purdue held Nebraska QB Adrian Martinez to 14 of 29 passing, but gave up 269 yards yards on those 14 completions. However, Purdue intercepted him four times.
* Nebraska QB Martinez was even sloppier than usual. He was a mess. Four INTs, including a pick-six.
* Nebraska rushed for 130 yards (4.5 per carry), 18 yards coming from the QB.
* Against Wisconsin, Purdue didn’t score in the second half. Wisconsin’s defense is good. Wisconsin is trending very hot right now in a Big Ten season that has had teams all over the map, up and down, with Michigan State being one exception so far.
* Purdue will use a pair of run-oriented QBs who come in and replace O’Connell for a handful of snaps per game. They will do speed option once or twice a game with those guys.
KEY PERSONNEL
QB 16 AIDAN O’CONNELL (6-3, 210, Sr., Long Grove, Ill.)
* Was a no-star recruit and walked on at Purdue. As a high school senior, completed 61 pct of his passes for 2,741 yards with 26 TDs and 7 INTs.
* Started the first three games last year, then missed the rest due to injury.
* Purdue is No. 3 in the Big Ten in pass offense at 307.1 yards per game, and No. 2 in conference games at 295.6 per game.
* O’Connell is a pocket passer, not very mobile. He stands back there, makes reads, is decisive, and accurate. Reminds me a little of former CMU QB Cooper Rush, another guy who had no scholarship interest coming out of high school. O’Connell might be a little more error-prone than Rush was.
* Was 34 of 45 for 233 last week at Nebraska with 2 TDs, 0 INTs, a long of 21 yards, and was sacked twice.
* Began the game last week 16 of 19 for 107 yards.
* His brain and arm seem to match well against Iowa. Was 31 of 50 for 282 with two TDs against Iowa last year and had a huge game against Iowa this year.
* Averaged 305.3 yards passing per game last year.
+ Excellent pass to Bell for 21 yards on a skinny post last week. Great job by O’Connell, play atcion out of the I formation, fakes the hand off, back foot plants, looks up Bell, ball comes out on time, ball in the air as Bell gets into his break, and zips it in there. Excellent route, excellent read and throw.
- After being sacked two times in the first half, O’Connell forced an out route to WR 29 Broc Thompson. He was well-covered and O’Connell left the ball inside a little too much.
* Was 15 of 20 in the first half against Wisconsin, but for just 107 yards with 2 INTs.
- His third INT was a third-and-11 against another 8-man coverage. The three-man rush started to get to him, he started to scramble and then he threw an INT on a Brett Farve shuffle attempt. That was with Purdue trailing 20-13 with 13:00 to play at the UW 30-yard line. Ouch. Tried to make a play, but that opened the negative dam.
* Wisconsin LB INT and 37-yard return to the 1-yard line late in the 1H out of an eight-man coverage.
* Purdue was competitive on the scoreboard up to that point thanks in part to a scoop and score TD by DE Karlaftis.
+ 10-yard TD pass to TE Payne Durham against Wisconsin. QB had time against a 3-man rush. Intricate route combination and TE popped wide open behind the LBs.
QB snaps vs Iowa:
O’Connell, 64 snaps, 40 passes
Plummer, 8 snaps, 2 passes, five QB rushes
Burton, 4 snaps, 1 pass, 3 QB rushes
WR 3 DAVID BELL (6-2, 205, Jr., Indianapolis Warren Central)
* Four-star recruit, ranked No. 95 in the nation. Also visited Indiana and Penn State.
* Leads the Big Ten in receiving yards per game at 112..3
* Is second in the Big Ten in receptions with 53 (trailing Penn State’s Jahan Dotson’s 60).
* Great route runner. Good at selling the deep one, and cutting on a dime.
* Will go with the possession and intermediate routes, then then out-and-up is coming in the second half.
* Beat Nebraska CB Taylor-Britt with a nice comeback for 13 yards, after selling the deep go. QB was right on time with an accurate ball.
* Brohm felt he didn’t move Bell around enough vs Wisconsin.
* Nine catches for 74 yards last week vs Nebraska.
* They like to use him as the No. 3 receiver. On third and four, if he gets a free release, they’ll run a little bitch for the first down yardage. He’s a possession receiver that way.
* Against Iowa, the Hawkeyes didn’t play as much zone as they normally do. I’m not sure if Purdue’s early success chased them out of zone or what. But they went man-to-man, and Bell burned them.
* No. 7-ranked WR NFL prospect by Mel Kiper.
* 11 catches, 240 yards against Iowa.
• Bell has surpassed 100 receiving yards in 14 of his 25 career games at Purdue. He has been under 100 yards in each of the past two games. Purdue pundits feel it's unlikely he will be held under 100 for a third straight week.
• Bell started his 2021 campaign with a 134-yard, eight-catch effort vs. Oregon State (Sept. 4) and a 121-yard, six-catch, three-touchdown outing at UConn (Sept. 11).
• Bell missed the Illinois (Sept. 25) game due to being in concussion protocol after the Notre Dame (Sept. 18) game.
WR 0 MILTON WRIGHT (6-3, 195, Jr., Louisville, Ky.)
* Was a four-star recruit, ranked No. 223 in the nation.
* Also had offers from Kentucky, Miami, Michigan State, Minnesota, Oregon, Ohio State, Alabama, Georgia.
* 32 catches, 3 TDs 39 yards receiving per game.
+ 3-yard TD last week on a mesh crosser wide open in the back of the end zone; Nebraska coverage bust.
* Is consistently between four and seven catches per game. His high yardage game of the year was 91 yards on six catches against Minnesota.
* Had 24 catches for 305 yards and two TDs last year.
WR 33 JACKSON ANTHROP (5-11, 190, Sr., West Lafayette)
* Two-star recruit, unranked. Purdue appears to be his only offer.
* 28 catches, 29 yards receiving per game.
* 6 cathes for 43 yards last week.
+ 11 yard gain on a slot out via the RPO last week in the 1Q.
RB 22 KING DOERUE (5-10, 205, Jr., Amarillo, Texas)
* Three-star recruit, No. 77 in Texas. Also visited Minnesota and Texas Tech.
* Hard-running guy, decently explosive.
* Rushed for 74 yards on 17 carries last week (4.4 per attempt) with a long of 13.
+ Nice 12 yard gain in the 2Q last week on a counter gap play with two pullers. Looked like a solid run team on that play.
* For the year, he has 363 yards rushing, 3.9 per, and 1 TD.
40 Zander Horvath (6-3, 230, Sr., Mishawaka, Ind.)
* Was their best RB earlier in the year. Injured his ankle, had surgery, returned last week.
* 11 carries for 25 yards last week (2.2 per).
* 2-yard TD run on third-and-goal last week. Purdue went to six offensive linemen on the play and zone-blocked it in out of shot gun.
* Has 113 yards on the year in three games played.
TE 87 PAYNE DURHAM (6-5, 255, Jr., Suwanee, Ga.)
* 5.5 Three-star recruit, also visited Duke and Missouri.
* Brohm makes it sound like he is doubtful for the game due to a late-game injury last week.
* Michigan State isn’t going to believe Brohm and they prepared expecting 87 to be out there.
* Second-leading receiver with 36 catches for 356 yards, 4 TDs, a candidate for first-team All-Big Ten honors.
* Good, reliable big target with pretty good athleticism. O’Connell likes to read short to long, and a lot of times Durham is open early.
+ 10-yard TD reception against Wisconsin. QB had time against a 3-man rush. Intricate route combination and TE popped wide open behind the LBs.
+ 24 yard catch on skinny route to the seam.
* Honorable mention All-Big Ten last year (16 receptions).
* If he’s available and his normal self, then this game becomes tougher for Michigan State. I could see his availability, or lack thereof, having a three-point impact on the point spread.
* Remember, if No. 69 in playing left tackle, then Purdue’s offensive line is much better off. If he’s out and No. 74 has to play LT, that means No. 68 plays RT. Panasiuk would dominate No. 68 (Cam Craig).
PURDUE EFENSE
DE 5 GEORGE KARLAFTIS (6-4, 275, West Lafayette, Ind.)
* Four-star recruit, rankd No. 137 in the nation. Also visited USC.
* No. 3-ranked WR NFL prospect by Mel Kiper.
* Second team All-Big Ten last year.
* His inside pass rush move isn’t as good as Aidan Hutchinson’s.
* Against the run, not as firm as Hutchinson or Kenny Willekes. But those are high comparisons. This guy is quite good.
* Has three sacks on the year.
* He will play as a stand-up DE from time to time.
* In 23 career collegiate games, Karlaftis has 25.5 tackles-for-loss and 12.5 sacks.
* Named a semifinalist for the Chuck Bednarik Award.
* Defeated a TE last week with a strong shoulder swipe, closed for a QB hit in the 2Q.
* Not the greatest discipline in run defense on one occasion last week. Didn’t squeeze down with a split flow block coming right at him, RB got out for a gain of 15 last week.
DE 44 KYDRAN JENKINS (6-1, 270, Fr., Louisville, Ga.)
* 5.6 three-star recruit, also had offers from Missouri, App State, Western Kentucky.
* Brohm said “not optimistic on that one” on Thursday about Jenkins’ availability for this game.
* Good looking player for the future.
* Stand up DE at times
* Sack in the 3Q after Nebraska’s crappy LT 69 got beat.
+ Solid job vs the run at the point of attack vs a TE, setting the edge for no gain, but was injured on the play in the 3Q. Lower body injury. Helped off the field with a hobble.
+ Sack in the 3Q against Wisconsin in the third quarter, defeated the LT with an outside move that didn’t seem special, but he his legs were churning.
* 90 Lawrence Johnson and 58 Deen Branson are good, sturdy DTs inside, but they don’t get any relief.
SAM 6 JALEN GRAHAM (6-3, 200, Jr., Detroit Cass Tech)
* 5.6 three-star safety prospect, ranked No. 17 in Michigan. October commitment.
* Also had offers from Boston College, Cincinnati, Indiana, Iowa State, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Pitt, Missouri, Rutgers, Syracuse.
* Blasted the blocking RB on a pass rush last week for a QB pressure in the 1Q but missed the sack. Good power through the block attempt.
• Returned an INT 45 yards for a touchdown. Dropping into zone, it was a simple INT against double slants to tie the game at 7-7. Error by QB Martinez.
+ His second INT, again just sitting in zone and Martinez was getting heat from Karlaftis, getting his jersey tugged, and Martinez attempted a Brett Farve backhand shovel. Ill-advised by Martinez.
• Graham's performance at Nebraska, which included two interceptions, helped him earn Big Ten Conference Defensive Player of the Week, announced on Monday, Nov. 1
MLB 43 KIEREN DOUGLAS (6-2, 240, Sr., Pickerington, Ohio)
* Average to below-average lateral quickness.
* Transfer from Army.
* Adam Decker type of MLB. Gritty, pretty dependable, not the most athletic.
WILL 36 JAYLAN ALEXANDER (6-1, 240, Sr., Hoffman Estates, Ill.)
* Was a 5.5 three-star recruit. Had MAC offers.
* Purdue’s leading tackler.
- Not a great job by Alexander vs a pull guard while safety Grant tried to scrape over the top for the tackle. Alexander not great, and safety Grant missed the tackle, Nebraska RB got outside for a gain of 35.
+ Good job reading gaps and arriving with some force. Solid stick on the Wisconsin RB on an inside run in the 1Q.
+ 10 tackles against Iowa.
* Quality ILB.
+ TFL loss of four on run blitz against Wisconsin.
CB 1 DEDRICK MACKEY (5-11, 190, Sr. Miami)
* 5.7 three-star recruit. Also visited Cincinnati and South Florida
- Allowed 43 yards on a deep post last week vs off man-to-man. Got caught looking back for the ball too early.
S 10 CAM ALLEN (6-1, 195, JR., Bluefield Va.)
* 5.6 three star recruit, No. 20 in Virginia.
* Also had offers from mid-majors and Virginia.
* Honorable mention All-Big Ten last year.
* Pretty good lateral movement, dropped what would have been a pick six short route last week.
- Missed a tackle on a slot out route at the 10-yard line, allowing a 16-yard TD last week.
* Pretty good hitter.
- Was beaten on a deep post by 5 yards late in the 1H last week but QB Martinez overthrew the WR by a step. Should have been a demoralizing 52-yard TD at intermission and a 24-14 Husker lead.
On that play: very stupid job by Purdue to have an extra man in the box and a second run-sniffing safety up at the LB level after the snap, and essentially a zero coverage without a blitz, when Nebraska had it first-and-10 at the -47 with :20 left in the half. Had to have been an assignment error. No way they’re that stupid.
- Missed tackle on a safety blitz, resulted in 20-yard TD run for Wisconsin.
S 4 MARVIN GRANT (6-2, 190, Soph., Detroit King)
* Was a four-star recruit, No. 138 in the nation, No. 6 in Michigan.
* No opinion, other than his failed scrape on a 35-yard run last week.
* Played as a reserve last year.
CB 7 JAMARI BROWN (6-3, 205, Jr., Sunrise, Fla./Pampano Beach Ely)
* 5.6 three-star recruit, originally signed with Kentucky over Auburn, Illinois, Pitt, Oregon, South Carolina and others.
* Started three games at Kentucky in 2019. Hampered by a hamstring last year at Kentucky.
* No opinion.
ADD IT ALL UP
The shaky Michigan State that was a bit mistake-prone against Rutgers and Indiana would not win this game at Purdue. You have to assume that Michigan State grew during its preparation for Michigan, and it’s success against the Wolverines, and in the preparation in coming out of that game.
Teams are still developing, or regressing, even in the final one-third of the season. QB McNamara showed no signs of being able to read the middle of the field and deliver like he did last week. We knew he had the arm talent, but had not demonstrated the ability to read and deliver accurately on intermediate routes. And we didn’t know anything about Andrel Anthony.
Also, we hadn’t seen the Michigan State o-line block that intricately, and even Heisman Trophy candidate Kenneth Walker III continues to polish his game, with more inside aggression.
Now, Michigan State needs Tre Mosley and Montorie Foster to take it up a notch in the expected absence of Jalen Nailor.
MSU’s pass rush was quiet last week. It’s imperative that that group makes noise this week, and upset the pocket and rhythm of a quality passer like O’Connell.
Michigan State won’t stand pat in pass defense. They will likely look for ways to cover for Grose, and prevent him from getting into matchups in the slot against Bell. What that looks like, I don’t know. Will Michigan State drop eight like Wisconsin? Will Michigan State revert to bend-but-don’t-break softness along the sidelines like they did against Miami? I don’t know. But I wouldn’t expect as much man-to-man as last week.
Purdue will try to establish the run like it did last week at Nebraska. Can Michigan State stop it with the standard number while keeping two safeties back? If so, good step toward victory for Michigan State.
Will TE Payne Durham be available for Purdue? He’s a very important No. 2 man for O’Connell.
Overall, it’s a good, competitive Big Ten football game with College Football Playoff and Heisman Trophy implications on the line for Michigan State. Purdue will be jacked, but Michigan State’s balance on offense, and depth on defense gives the Spartans an edge.
If Purdue’s d-end Jenkins (44) can’t play and you see 99 starting instead, realize that Purdue’s thin d-line will be prone to wearing down against the run in the second half. A big second half on the ground from Walker is probable.
Purdue has forced some turnovers this year, but I don’t think Thorne will be prone to the same type of mistakes.
MSU’s conditioning edge in the fourth quarter seems to be a real, consistent thing, and it’s a good trump card to carry into the fourth quarter.
Purdue has great program history of pulling upsets like this one. Michigan State has so much to lose, and Purdue is a pretty good team that will be jacked up to shock the nation. But MSU’s tunnel vision to this point in the season is a good sign, as are MSU’s relative good health and depth, and an overall edge in offensive balance and athleticism and physicality. It should combine to provide the proper firewall in a difficult, dangerous test.
