The Pre-Snap Read: Michigan State vs. Wisconsin
By Jim Comparoni
MADISON, Wis. - Let’s cut to the chase.
I would take Ohio State to beat Wisconsin by at least 10 if they played this weekend, maybe more. That gives you an idea of what I think about Wisconsin.
The Badgers do a few things very well. They are a knuckleball, and they benefit from their oddness.
But the Badgers are not a complete team. Their QB is not good or comfortable (or perhaps not trusted) on third-and-medium, much less third-and-long.
Wisconsin boasts some hellacious stats this year. But the more I watched them, especially their game against Northwestern, the more I gave Michigan State a chance to compete in this game and possibly win.
Get them in third-and-medium on a regular basis, and third-and-long more than occasionally, and they become quite pedestrian, even archaic.
The trick is to hold firm and tough long enough on first and second down to get them into third down. Michigan wasn’t able to do that.
How do you do that?
1. Stop the run. That’s easy to say, hard to do. Northwestern did it with firm defensive tackle play vs interior double-team blocks. Michigan State can replicate that.
2. Cover the RBs on short passes (swing passes, short wheels, angle routes). That might mean skewing safeties a little bit away from WR threats, but sometimes you have to rob Peter to pay Paul. Wisconsin is much more likely to try to nickle-and-dime you with short passes to the RB or TE than to attack you deep. I didn’t see ONE intermediate pass (thrown between 11 and 20 yards) in the eight quarters I charted (4Qs vs Northwestern, 1H vs Michigan and Kent State). That tells me they don’t trust QB Jack Coan to make intricate reads and throws.
Stop the run and MAKE Coan attempt intricate reads and throws. If you get him to third-and-medium or third-and-long in a tight game, let’s see how he does.
Third-and-medium at midfield, by the way, is usually a run play for Wisconsin. They will come back on fourth-and-two with the hippo backfield (two reserve offensive linemen as fullbacks) and pick up fourth-and-two with no problem, against other opponents anyway.
3. Look for change-ups on p-and-10 (p-and-10 is the first play of the drive). Wisconsin will go “off the board” and do something different on the first play of a drive. That might mean a roll-out pass, a play-action pass, zone read, lead draw. They won’t run their staple powers or counters on p-and-10. They’ll do something a little different on p-and-10. It’s obviously scripted that way. Be ready for a change-up on p-and-10.
Wisconsin can be predictable, but that doesn’t mean you can stop them. Michigan surely couldn’t. Michigan was without DT Michael Dwumfour in that game. He’s back and he makes a difference. If he had played in the game, Wisconsin still would have won but it wouldn’t have looked so much like men vs boys.
So Here’s The First Question:
1a. Is Michigan State equipped AND fresh enough to stand firm on defense against Wisconsin?
On paper, on reputation, on eye test, the answer SHOULD be yes. Or, in the least, Michigan State has as good a chance as anyone on Wisconsin’s schedule to stand firm against the run.
This was THE initial question mark of the Michigan State vs Ohio State game too. Michigan State was excellent in this area for the first quarter and a half. But then came the 67-yard back-breaking inside zone which gave OSU a 24-10 lead (this came after the 60-yard error which made it 10-0, and the third-and-five error on the 35-yard QB run which fueled the drive that made it 17-7). Errors compounded errors in those situations with Joe Bachie going for a strip at the 7-yard line rather than securing a tackle and living to play another down on the play that made it 17-7. And Josiah Scott making the same mistake at the 20-yard line on the 67-yard run.
Michigan State coaches have been harping on their players to do their job, don’t play hero ball, play tough, stay tough, keep your eyes right, and tackle. Do that against Ohio State, and that game is close heading deep into the third quarter, guaranteed. No need for superman heroics. Just don’t beat yourself and you’re in that OSU game against arguably the best team in the country.
Back to the question: Is Michigan State equipped to stop the run?
1b. The Spartans gave up 323 yards on the ground to OSU. Did that leave a psychological and physical mark? Are more bad ground games coming up for Michigan State? Wisconsin is as tough a test in that category as you can find.
Some teams give up a figure, once in awhile. Ole Miss rushed for 279 against Alabama a couple of weeks ago. Sometimes your fastball isn’t working. Defense doesn’t ALWAYS travel, these days.
My biggest question: Will there be a carryover effect for Michigan State? The OSU game was physical. Will it be hard for Michigan State to snap back and play four more quarters with hammer vs nail toughness?
Michigan State lacked depth last week on defense. Linebackers wore down, and they could have used more depth and freshness (especially mentally) in the secondary.
Wisconsin DOES go deep on defense. They play multiple LBs without much of a dropoff, and reserve DBs play extensively too. That’s part of what makes Wisconsin’s defense good (they lead the nation in scoring defense with three shutouts).
Coming out of the OSU game, MSU’s lack of serviceable, trustworthy depth on defense became THE biggest sticking point between Michigan State having a very good defense and an elite defense capable of containing a team like OSU for four quarters. That was my takeaway immediately after the game, and Michigan State d-coordinator Mike Tressel pretty much said the same thing during interviews on Tuesday.
Tressel said he wants to play back-up LBs more. He said it without being prompted, without me leading him on the question. He wants to develop those guys. In this game, Tressel says they need to run more linebackers onto the field. They need more bodies in order to hold firm vs. all these collisions.
The problem is that he and Michigan State, if they do this, will be relying on guys like Noah Harvey, Jeslord Boateng and Chase Kline to play their first meaningful snaps ever. That’s a dangerous proposition, but one that Michigan State plans to explore this week. What will it look like, if they pull the pin and try it? You’ll know when I know.
Last week, MSU’s first-time starter at cornerback, Kalon Gervin, also struggled. Will Josh Butler be back? That’s the expectation. Butler isn’t great, but his tackling was needed on a couple of those busts.
Michigan State wore down against OSU. Pace of play, and the anxiety/intensity of that particular game had something to do with it. Wisconsin will play slower, which will make things a little more manageable for Michigan State.
Getting back to the question:
1c. Will it be harder to play four physical quarters of run defense against this outstanding Wisconsin rush offense because Michigan State is coming off of four physical, taxing quarters just seven days ago?
I have to believe the answer is yes. Michigan State might be down one defensive end in Jacub Panasiuk. Is there a weardown effect on Joe Bachie, Tyriq Thompson and Antjuan Simmons, as well as Xavier Henderson?
Meanwhile, Wisconsin is fresh as a daisy. They had a bye week prior to the Michigan game. They curb-stomped Michigan. Then the Badgers slumbered vs Northwestern (more on that game later) and had a walk-through against Kent State last week.
They haven’t left the state of Wisconsin since the last weekend of August. They have been home seven straight weeks, when counting the bye week. They are poised and primed to kill their next victim at Camp Randall. And by the way, this is another nice little test by which they can measure themselves.
All things point toward Wisconsin being primed for an A-game, and Michigan State struggling to try to muscle through its soreness to wring out four quality quarters of defensive football.
I’m confident in saying that Michigan State’s run defense would offer good resistance vs the Badger ground game if the game were played in East Lansing under otherwise equal circumstances (if Michigan State wasn’t coming off a physical, somewhat demoralizing loss at Ohio State and if Wisconsin weren’t coming off a creampuff game, two weeks after a red letter win, three weeks after a bye week). Michigan State is battered (but driven).
With Michigan State having lost 34-10 and taken on a lot of water last week at OSU, that SHOULD be a big net positive for Wisconsin. (The old football axiom: It’s not which team you’re playing, but WHEN you play them and WHERE you play them. Wisconsin benefits big-time in the latter).
But could the OSU lessons be a positive for Michigan State? Michigan State is sore, but not yet completely battered - at least I don’t think they are. Not yet. After this game, they might be.
But, for now, Michigan State has had the “benefit” of having been on the field with a truly elite team. As good as Wisconsin is, they don’t present as many problems as OSU. Michigan State is prepped this week with the Ohio State standard in mind. That can help.
Having lost to OSU, Michigan State is the team that NEEDS to win this game - probably more than Wisconsin feels the need to win. That means something in college and pro football. It’s probably worth a touchdown. Wisconsin will be up, but will they be as desperate as Michigan State? Last week Michigan State was the more desperate, motivated team at the outset, and you saw Michigan State play extremely well early on defense in the first quarter, but probably burned more early-game fuel than is ideal.
Wisconsin is good. But the numbers are about to come back down to earth a little bit, with games against tougher opponents on the horizon.
The numbers:
* Wisconsin outscored its non-conference opponents (South Florida, Central Michigan, Kent State) 158-0.
* Wisconsin is out-scoring its opponents 135-3 in the first half.
* Wisconsin is ranked No. 1 in the nation in scoring defense at 5.8 PPG.
FINAL ANALYSIS FIRST
* I give Michigan State a solid chance to contain the run for three quarters. In the meantime, does Michigan State do enough to capitalize? Does Michigan State complement good run defense with quality pass defense, with limited penalties on both sides of the ball, with no turnovers on offense, with no missed field goals? Does Michigan State get off the field with good tackling on a third-and-six swing pass to the running back?
Michigan State will need all of those other things to come up aces in order to complement the possibility of good run defense.
If Michigan State is good in those other areas, then MSU’s defense won’t spend as much time on the field, will get off the field on third down, and will have the piss and vinegar to keep chopping wood in the fourth quarter.
* Contain the run and Wisconsin is not difficult to contain on third-and-medium or longer. Write that down.
* A lot of this is like the OSU recipe from last week. Michigan State was on course, but barfed it away with two early turnovers and some uncharacteristic lack of discipline on defense on four crippling plays in the second quarter.
Maybe MSU’s defense wouldn’t have been as undisciplined in the second quarter if Michigan State’s offense hadn’t turned the ball over on two of its first four plays, or whatever it was. That created back-to-the-wall anxiety way too early for the Michigan State defense, and I think it had an impact on the fuel tank (and Tressel does too).
* MSU’s run defense has a solid chance to do its job in this game against the most prolific RB in the country. But the run defense needs everyone else to do their job as well.
* As was the case last week, stopping the run and containing the offense is only half of the job. Equally daunting is the task of operating against the opposing defense.
Wisconsin has been handcuffing everyone. But you can make the case that they have played three poor mid-majors, and two of the worst offenses in the Big Ten in Michigan and Northwestern. That would all be true.
Wisconsin is quick, direct, physical on defense. They are great on third-and-long. They shape-shift and confuse you, and they get home with a quality pass rush.
Michigan State has moved the ball against everyone, including a powerful Ohio State defense. Michigan State moved the ball well enough to score 21 points against OSU. Not many teams are going to break 20 against the Buckeyes this year.
If Brian Lewerke completes the open pass to Cody White, and if he sees wide-open Trenton Gillison on the pass interference play in the third quarter, there’s your 21 points.
Ifs and buts and candy and nuts, I know.
But MSU’s offense played better than the 10 points it finished with. That doesn’t help anyone now, but it gives reason to believe they CAN produce points against good defenses going forward. Like Lewerke said after the game, they need to finish. In this case, he needed to finish. He knows that better than anyone. He was good last week, excellent at times, and almost excellent for the entire game. He said he felt the rush a little bit on both of those plays. That’s understandable.
* Wisconsin’s pass rush is good. They do it with numbers and confusing alignments, along with OLB Zach Baun, who is a quick, slippery, stand-up end, who plays like a Big Ten version of Von Miller.
I can’t tell if their pass defense is difficult to read, or if they have just played against some putrid passing attacks. I think it’s a little bit of both. And I would expect Michigan State to have the capacity to present Wisconsin with the best passing game it has faced this year.
HOWEVER, can we expect Lewerke to shed his trend this year of struggling to make the finishing play in the red zone? Can we expect the pass protection to be good enough for four quarters? Can we expect the receivers to shed their season-long trend of dropping one out of every five passes (23 dropped passes, 104 completions). According to Pro Football Focus, Lewerke leads the nation in dropped passes. Many of those passes are the fault of the receivers, of course, but I am beginning to wonder about Lewerke. We all know that there are some QBs who throw wonderfully “catchable” balls. If that description exists for some, might the opposite exist for others? If so, is Lewerke in the latter category? At times, he is.
* Can Michigan State complement what it hopes to be an effective pass game with a good ground game? Michigan State chipped in a few more good runs against OSU than I expected. Michigan State showed some progress with some of its tailback run plays, with Elijah Collins averaging 5.2 yards per carry.
Sack numbers, and the need to abandon the run due to the scoreboard, aborted what might have turned out to be a nice little 130-yard day on the ground.
Now, Michigan State will play a swarming type of Wisconsin defense that is not as firm at defensive tackle as Ohio State. Wisconsin plays with quickness at outside linebacker, but a good running attack can put a hole in these guys. Is Michigan State a good running attack? No. Not yet. On a good day, MSU’s ground attack is serviceable. That’s what Michigan State has to hope for on this day, and it’s possible that they can achieve that, judging by the handful of good moments the ground game provided last week.
Michigan State of course is not going to win a game on its ground attack alone. But Michigan State is averaging 144 yards rushing per game. Collins is averaging 5.3 yards per carry. Mix in some well-timed Lewerke contributions afoot and MSU’s ground game can be expected to do enough of its part to help Michigan State win, as long as the pass game doesn’t implode, special teams doesn’t choke and the defense can keep a clear head.
Not exactly a clean bill of mental and physical health, but that’s Michigan State football in 2019, halfway through the season.
* Mark Dantonio challenged his team to play a perfect game at Ohio State. Michigan State was as messy as usual, but still traded blows at times quite impressively with a true super heavyweight.
Michigan State is aiming for perfection again this week. Wisconsin isn’t so great that you NEED to be perfect. But Michigan State is in no position to believe it can overcome its usual slippage and beat this team, in this environment and these circumstances.
TRENDS & INTANGIBLES
* Forecasts expect winds of 17 to 28 mph, and temps in the 40s. That will help keep the game lower-scoring, and in theory that should help Michigan State. But Michigan State needs a strong game from the passing attack more than Wisconsin. The wind will be an extra defender for a decent, not great, Wisconsin pass defense.
* Michigan State usually doesn’t get rolled two straight weeks. The last 11 times Michigan State has lost by double digits, the Spartans have have gone 10-1 the following week. The one loss was last year at Nebraska. When Michigan State loses bad, Dantonio usually rallies them the following week. But look back and tell me when they have ever played two straight road games against Top 10 teams and needed to answer like this. Tell me the last time any team has played two straight road games against Top 10 teams. It’s probably not a favorable formula.
* Lewerke’s legs need to be a factor. QB zone read keepers and QB draws (by Northwestern) have had some success against Wisconsin. But watch out. Wisconsin’s DBs are head hunters. I’ve seen them called for two personal fouls with unnecessary roughness hits on QB, including one on Michigan’s Dylan McCaffrey that he’s still recovering from.
* BTN’s Dave Wannstedt: “I like Michigan State in this game. They are going to handle the run. Wisconsin doesn’t present the big dual threat that Ohio State did. I like this matchup, I truly do, for Michigan State.”
My Take: Good point. Coach knows more about this stuff than I do. The run threat of QB Zach Fields was a big, big difference maker last week - maybe THE difference-maker, in terms of creating game-breaking plays, and getting out of negative plays to elongate plays. Fields’ run threat even had an impact on the 67-yard TD run by Dobbins. Fields sold the keeper fake on that play, and drew Michigan State safety Xavier Henderson to run two false steps toward him. That took Henderson out of position to rally to Dobbins.
Whether or not Henderson was assigned to the Fields run on that play, I don’t know. But carrying out the run fake moved the safety. Coan won’t move safeties with the threat of the run fake. Coan MIGHT keep it once or twice in key situations, but not on a generic third-and-two situation, as was the case on the 67-yard TD by Dobbins.
The dual threat of Fields was everything.
Coan will be easy to defend, by comparison.
THINGS TO DO
When Michigan State is on defense:
* Stay alive on first and second down, give them third down and 4 yards or more, and they can become very, very pedestrian, even archaic.
* The difficult part is holding them to 6 yards total on first and second down.
* Cover the running backs in pass coverage on third-and-medium.
* They don’t pass much, but when they do, they like hitches and slants. If you play off coverage, you can bait the into a slant. Jump the slant and get a tip-drill interception. Northwestern’s Bergin did this, got a tip, but the potential INT fell to the turf.
Later, Northwestern dropped a d-end into the flat and nearly had a pick-six on a short wheel to the RB Taylor.
* If you watch Paul Chryst play cards long enough and you see a pattern.
Wisconsin loves to call a pass play on the first play of a drive (known as p-and-10). The first play of a drive is usually something a little off-the-board for Wisconsin, like a play action pass, or a pistol zone read, or a draw play, or a roll-out pass, or a max pro deep shot. It usually isn’t one of their staple powers or counters.
Northwestern sent a safety blitz at them on a p-and-10 and got a sack midway through the 2Q.
Should we expect Wisconsin to break tendency? No. Tressel mentioned this week that when they have gone over their Wisconsin notes over the years, something that always comes up is: They are who they are, what you see on film is what they’re going to present to you.
So look for change-ups to continue on p-and-10. Use that to your advantage and put them in second-and-long at the outset of the drive. Northwestern had success with this. From there, Northwestern contained the run on second down.
When Michigan State is on offense:
* Wisconsin’s base defense against a 3-WR offense is a 2-4-5. Two down linemen. Two stand-up defensive end/OLBs. Two ILBs. And five DBs.
When Wisconsin is in a two-down front, go ahead and double-team one of those DTs and run an inside zone at them. Their defensive tackles are good at a lot of things but from what I’ve seen they are not all that good against double-teams. They can be moved. Northwestern did it more than a few times.
Run right at them, get three or four yards that way, and get some body blows established.
* Their stand-up defensive ends are quick and correct, and they get off blocks. But they are linebackers. They aren’t big. They lack a little heft with their stand-up defensive ends. Their OLBs are active and productive, partly because they are quick and aggressive.
Theoretically you should be able to run right at them and test them at the POA (point of attack).
Northwestern tried to pull a guard, trap them and kick out No. 41, the lesser of their two OLBs. That might be the best mode for Michigan State because the blocking of MSU’s tackle/TE double team is not good enough to take advantage of Wisconsin’s lack of heft at the stand-up ends.
On a p-and-10 midway through the 3Q, Northwestern pulled the front side guard and led with the guard ducking INSIDE the tight end, with a TE sealing 41 to the outside. They picked up a nice 4-yard gain. That’s something, if you can then complement it with decent play-action passing, which Northwestern is unable to do.
Bottom line: Northwestern ran at No. 41 to the outside, believing he wouldn’t defeat the block and disrupt the play. Northwestern added a gap by pulling the guard and folding him around the tackle.
A good team can get something by running right at No. 41. Is Michigan State a good team? Not in this area of the game, but you have to try. Something can be accomplished in this part of the matchup.
GAME WITHIN THE GAME
* Wisconsin’s defense has been great on third-and-seven or longer. I heard a stat that Wisconsin’s opponents are something like 1 for 39 on third down when it’s third-and-eight or longer.
Lewerke said Wisconsin blitzes 67 percent of the time on third-and-medium.
“They are going to pressure you and after watching film from last week, every team is probably going to pressure us, but them especially,” Lewerke said.
Ouch. Not a glowing endorsement of his pass protection. Lewerke might be starting to feel like he’s on an island, due to the the dropped passes and the inconsistent protection (MSU’s pass pro was No. 1 in the Big Ten prior to last week, but that might have been a misleading stat).
Lewerke says they blitz two-thirds of the time on third-and-long. But I saw a couple of outliers in the Northwestern game.
Northwestern converted back-to-back third-and-8 and third-and-7 on one drive in the 2Q against Wisconsin. Wisconsin blitzed neither time, and played off coverage.
* On a third-and-8 with 7 minutes to go in the 1H. Northwestern completed a 7-yard in route against off coverage to second-string WR J.J. Jefferson.
The coverage turned out to be off quarters, but it’s hard to tell if it’s man or off quarters until a couple of beats into play.
On that play, Wisconsin CB Faion Hicks (No. 1) played it too thin to the outside and allowed a few yards after the catch for the conversion, or else teams would be 0 for 39 on third and long, if that stat is accurate.
* Northwestern: third-and-seven, vs off quarters. Outside WR cleared out, the inside WR ran a hook vs zone-dropping corner for a gain of 8, tackled on the spot.
**
Wisconsin went away from its mode of operation on those two plays. Northwestern converted, but there was no room for yards after the catch.
Michigan State has not been an explosive team through the air. They have been a possession-oriented pass team, when they’ve managed to hang onto passes. Being a possession-oriented pass attack is not a good thing if your offense is also prone to dropped passes and offensive penalties, as is the case with Michigan State.
Anyway, getting back to Wisconsin’s third down defense, or Wisconsin’s pass rush in general, their stand-up defensive ends are often joined by a blitzing safety or a blitzing linebacker. Wisconsin walks up the blitzes late. It’s difficult to identify who is blitzing.
Sometimes they will show blitzing numbers on one edge of the formation, but those guys end up dropping into coverage, and a late-developing blitz develops on the other side, sometimes with stunts.
“Stuff like that kind of gets you confused and tries to keep you guessing,” Lewerke said.
+ Wisconsin had 14 tackles for loss against Northwestern.
+ Wisconsin had six sacks on the first 21 Kent State offensive plays last week.
INSIDE WISCONSIN’S OFFENSE
* Wisconsin huddles and plays slow and can possess the ball FOREVER on you.
* Wisconsin held the ball for 41 minutes against Michigan.
* They only had four possessions in the first half last week against Kent State, and they scored TDs on all four possessions, and led 28-0 at the half. That’s about as methodically dominant as you can get.
* Tressel was talking this week about the fact that Wisconsin is one of the few teams remaining that runs super powers and super counters, with more than one puller rumbling down your throat.
“Preparing for them has become like preparing for a service academy team,” Tressel said. “They do things your players aren’t accustomed to seeing.”
Tressel said MSU’s veteran players have background knowledge on how to take on the pullers and some of Wisconsin’s gap schemes.
“Powers and counters, you don’t see those much anymore,” Tressel said. “You might have seen those every week 10 years ago. We used to see them every single day in spring ball and fall camp, but we don’t seem them even in practice that much anymore.
“Our young players, you could see, didn’t have a background on how to take that stuff on,” Tressel said. “So we had three days to teach it.”
* Wisconsin is multiple in its running game. They will use inside zone like everyone else, but they’ll do it with a lead blocker (whether it’s a straight fullback, or a split-zone, wham blocking TE).
* They’ll do their old-fashioned isolation leads, and powers, and super powers (with more than one puller), and counters, and super counters (with more than one puller).
They’ll run the draw play at least once per drive. It’s often a lead draw, out of the I formation, old school stuff.
For a team that passes as infrequently as Wisconsin, it’s strange how well the draw play works. Maybe it works because defenses and defensive players just plain don’t see an I formation lead draw EVER, in practice, in games, in high school, ever.
When is the last time you saw a lead draw in college football? Well, these defensive players around the league haven’t seen them either. A lead draw out of the I formation is as awkward to defenses these days as the no-huddle spread was 12 years ago. (Nebraska on two occasions nearly popped long TD runs on basic fullback trap out of the I formation against Ohio State. Nebraska hadn’t shown that on film. It was something from the Tom Osborne days).
* Wisconsin doesn’t run outside zone as much as they used to. Back in 1993 when Barry Alvarez was getting this started, they would kill you with the outside zone, and the outside stretch (which is an elongated version of the outside zone). They would run that play with Terrell Fletcher. They were a handful.
I only saw one outside zone in the eight quarters I charted (full game vs Northwestern, 1H vs Kent State and Michigan). That was a third-and-five against Northwestern on the opening drive of the 2H. Northwestern’s ILB scraped and tackled RB Jonathan Taylor before he could turn the corner for a gain of 1. Punt.
* Wisconsin has added a little bit of pistol/3-WR formation.
* UW began the UM game in three-wide pistol.
* They ran two RPO slants vs Michigan in the first half. They didn’t look that great at it. I didn’t see any RPOs against Northwestern.
* A little bit of pistol zone read.
* In the pass game, Wisconsin isn’t nearly as downfield-looking, or downfield-explosive as the Bielema teams when Chryst was o-coordinator. Back then, they had a mismatch TE, an NFL WR and Russell Wilson (or Scott Tolzien for that matter).
Now, they don’t seem to trust this QB, Jack Coan. Wisconsin will max pro and throw deep once in awhile, but they are careful, careful, careful with the passing attack.
WISCONSIN’S RESULTS
Wisconsin 49, South Florida 0
Wisconsin 61, Central Michigan 0
Wisconsin 35, Michigan 14
Wisconsin 24, Northwestern 15
Wisconsin 48, Kent State 0
WISCONSIN PERSONNEL
QUARTERBACK: Not impressive.
17 JACK COAN (6-3, 221, Jr., Sayville, NY)
* Four-star recruit, ranked No. 2 in New York.
* Had offers from Indiana, Miami, Michigan, Nebraska, Northwestern and others.
* QB is a game manager. If he doesn’t improve, he will get exposed when an opponent stops the run.
* 7-2 as a starter.
* He is among the nation’s leaders in pass completion percentage at 72 pct. But that’s because he throws short, short, short.
Recent numbers:
13 of 16 vs Michigan for 128 yards.
15 of 24 vs Northwestern for 113 yards.
12 of 15 vs Kent State for 134 yards.
Earlier in the year:
19 of 26 vs South Florida for 201 yards.
26 of 33 vs Central Michigan for 363 yards.
* Whatever sauce he had working against CMU, can he snap back into that against Michigan State? I’ll believe it when I see it.
* He has been shaky on third-downs in the last three games. Not sure if the shakiness is him, or the system, or both.
+ Good job looking off the safety on a deep TD down the right sideline to WR Cephus vs CMU.
+ Good touch on fades to the corner in the red zone.
* Against Michigan, he was 13 of 16 for 128 against Michigan with two TD runs.
+ Solid with play action to the field on a 14-yard out route vs Northwestern.
- Does not make many mistakes. Biggest mistake he made in the first half of the Kent State game was a swing pass to RB Taylor, leading him into a heavy, blind hit from a DB.
- He loves to check down to the easy, short pass. A Kent State drop linebacker anticipated one of those short passes and nearly intercepted a pass intended for the RB last week in zone defense. Coach threw short into a crowd when he other receivers open.
* UW coaches say Coan needs to trust himself more. He is not an envelope pusher. Maybe that’s him and not the system, after all.
* Coan took over as starting QB late last year and secured the job in the Pinstripe Bowl victory over Miami, causing Alex Hornibrook to transfer.
* He favors slants, hitches, roll out short passes, flares to the RB.
- INT late in 1H vs Northwestern. Deep post for 87 Cephus. Middle field wasn’t open. Threw it anyway, good pick-off by safety diving backward to make the play.
Wisconsin, when they go deep, will keep both TEs and two backs in for max pro, with only two WRs out on the route. They’ve done it that way for at least 15 years. At least once a game, usually once a half.
+ Found Pryor on a max pro, 20-yard over route, behind Cephus’ deep go route. UW shifted twice prior to the snap and it was their first play of the drive. When you see a lot of window dressing shifting, and it’s the first play of a drive, chances are it’s a scripted pass play. For a team that doesn’t pass that much, it helps a little to be able to identify when one is coming.
+ Play action half roll flare to RB Taylor for an 18-yard TD pass last week.
THIRD AND LONG REVEAL
I started to notice a trend of careful, non-explosive play from Coan on third downs. So I rewound and rewatched the Northwestern game, and the first half of the Kent State and Michigan games to chart what he did on third down.
The results were not impressive for a team that has been destroying teams on the scoreboard.
3-7: Empty, threw to RB Groshek on a flare for gain of 8 vs Kent State.
3-4: short out route to AJ Taylor. Taylor went in motion, and ran a little jerk/return route. He faked an in route, then jerk-returned to the outside. The high-percentage pass was waiting for him when he came out of his break for a gain of 6.
3-6: comeback to Cephus vs press for gain of 7. 1 by 3 formation. Coan stared him down and threw on time (you can stare someone down when facing press man-to-man).
3-3: first drive vs Michigan, roll out, one read, keep, dive gain of 2 and a half. (Went for it on fourth-and-inches on their own 34-yard line, 2 minutes into the game.)
3-10 vs Michigan 1Q: Shot gun, arm pump fake pass, QB draw. Gain of 7.
4-3: vs Michigan 1H: play action, deep wheel to Cephus vs Ambry THomas for 25 yard over-the-shoulder catch and out of bounds. (That was an outlier. Deep pass on fourth-and-three? Okay. Credit).
3-10 vs Michigan 1H: empty, QB draw, loss of 2.
3-6 vs Northwestern 1H: angle route to Taylor for gain of 15, he was the third receiver to release to that side. (Lesson: Sniff out the RB on pass plays, especially third down).
3-6: vs Northwestern 1H: Bunch right. Late release completion over the middle to the RB at 4 yards, gain of 4. (On fourth down and two: scored a 13-yard TD on a lead out of the hippo group).
3-10: vs Northwestern, 1H:, shot gun draw play to Taylor for gain of 7.
3-5: vs Northwestern 1H: shot gun, looked downfield vs man to man, stepped up in the pocket when his OTs gave up a little bit of edge rush, checked down to the TE, threw a little off-target and he was tackled on the spot for a gain of 2. Not impressive.
3-9 vs Northwestern 1H: Vs man to man, one read, threw it short of the sticks to a well-covered Danny Davis on a 5-yard in route which had little chance to get the first down yardage. The score was 7-3 at the time, with 12 minutes to go in the 1H.
3-16 vs Northwestern 1H: vs zone three man rush, valve check down to RB gain of 10.
3-5: vs Northwestern 2H; outside zone, gain of 1. Punt.
3-5 vs Northwestern 2H: INC to RB on wheel, almost INT by Northwestern d-end dropping into flat on a zone drop. Northwestern completely anticipated Coan checking down to a RB, got a hand on it, almost a big play on defense. Northwestern trailed just 7-3 at the time with 6:20 to go in the 3Q. Northwestern was right in it, and Wisconsin was sputtering, and this was their play choice - check down to the RB. Wisconsin was 4-for-11 on third down after this play.
THE NORTHWESTERN GAME:
Wisconsin’s offense was NOT GOOD against Northwestern.
Wisconsin had only 13 first-downs (compared to 21 for Northwestern).
Total yards: Northwestern 255, Wisconsin 243.
Wisconsin scored a TD on its opening drive but then:
- 5 and out, punt (18 yards total)
- 3 and out, punt.
- 3 and out, punt.
- 3 and out, punt.
- 4 and out, INT.
- 5 and out, end of half.
- 4-and-out, punt (21 yards total)
- 4-and-out, punt (19 yards total)
- 3-and-out, punt
[At this point, it’s a 7-3 game with 2:43 left in the third quarter. But Wisconsin got a sack, fumble into the end zone for a loss of 16 and a defensive touchdown. That made it 14-3 and the game completely changed.]
+ 7-and-out, field goal (41 yards, 17-3 lead).
[Then Wisconsin intercepted a pass and returned it 68 yards for a TD and a 24-3 lead.]
- 3-and-out, punt.
- 4-and-out, punt (17 yards)
- Victory formation.
The Takeaway: Northwestern stopped the inside run with quality defensive tackles and LB pursuit, put Wisconsin in third-and-uncomfortable.
Simple as that.
Was Wisconsin on a hangover after humiliating Michigan? Maybe a little. But this ground offense should be able to operate in its sleep, right?
Northwestern held Wisconsin to 130 yards on 36 carries (3.6 per). The great Jonathan Taylor had 119 yards on 26 carries with a long of 15.
There’s a clear blueprint on how to get the defensive side of this chore done - if you can handle the interior run
Back to the QBs:
(5 Graham Mertz, 6-3, 215, Fr.)
* Four-star recruit, ranked No. 42 in the nation, the No. 2 pro style QB in the nation and No. 1 in Kansas.
* Had offers from Clemson, Alabama, Georgia, Notre Dame, Ohio State and everyone else.
THE BADGER RUN GAME
* Wisconsin’s WRs, TEs and FB are outstanding blockers, helping take the run game to the next level, literally and figuratively.
* Wisconsin brought in two 300-pound, second-string offensive linemen to play fullback, at the same time, in a three-back formation on fourth-down against Michigan, and again on a second-and-goal. They call this the hippo backfield. They even had one of the big dudes shift at pre-snap. It’s just plain something you don’t see every day. When the hippo group is on the field, Wisconsin has about 2,500 pounds of blocking at work.
They have run it in short yardage many times in the last few weeks. It’s effective and demoralizing.
23 JONATHAN TAYLOR (5-11, 219, Jr., Salem, NJ)
* Four-star recruit, ranked No. 208 in the country, No. 4 in New Jersey, and the No. 13 RB in the nation.
* Had offers from Harvard, Navy, Boston College, Rutgers, Va Tech, Washington State, Yale and Army when he committed in November of his senior year. He had earlier committed to Rutgers.
* He was a three-star recruit when he committed to Wisconsin but climbed in the rankings after his senior film was evaluated.
* Gets two or three yards after contact.
* You see his long runs on the highlights. But he’s just as impressive with his garden variety gains of six or seven yards, quickly darting and making one miss, and getting an extra yard through contact at the end of the run.
* Ranks No. 7 all-time in Big Ten rushing (4,916 yards) and will almost certainly surpass Archie Griffin this year and end the season No. 2, Behind Ron Dayne (7,125).
* Leads the team in TOUCHDOWN RECEPTIONS with four.
* Has rushed for at least 100 yards in every game, and had 200-plus against Michigan.
+ Great ability to side step and make the first tackler miss. Elusive when hunting for daylight behind all those mammoth blockers.
* Underrated drive and strength. He can push the pile.
(14 Nakia Watson, 5-11, 229, R-Fr., Austin, Texas)
* 48 carries for 204 yards, 4.2 per, with two TDs.
* 5.7 three-star recruit, ranked No. 69 in Texas.
* Summer commitment also had offers from mid-majors.
(37 Garrett Groshek, 5-11 ,220, Jr., Amherst, Wis.)
* No-star, walk-on.
* Former quarterback.
+ Screen pass for about 20 yards against Michigan.
FB 44 JOHN CHENAL (6-2, 252, Soph., Grantsburg, Wis.)
* Was a no-star, walk-on LB.
(FB 34 Mason Stokke, 6-2, 239, Jr., Menomonie, Wis.)
* Yes, the back-up fullback plays too. He’s quick and he will get into you.
+ Heavy lead block on an ILB on a Taylor 21-yard TD run last week on a simple zone lead.
+ Carried for a gain of 3 on a fourth-and-one last week, with a quick hitter out of the I formation.
+ Spinning gain of 7 on a third-and-two on the opening series against Northwestern, on a fullback dive out of the I formation.
WIDE RECEIVERS: Not much work.
WR 87 QUINTEZ CEPHUS (6-1, 207, Jr.)
* A 5.5 three-star recruit, unranked in Georgia by Rivals.com. Ranked No. 91 in Georgia by ESPN.
* Leading receiver with 17 catches, averaging 52 receiving yards per game. Two TDs. 15.5 yards per catch.
* Has not had more than 36 receiving yards in a game in the past three games.
* Had six catches for 130 yards with two TDs against CMU, including a 46-yarder.
= Went deep to Cephus play action vs press lat week, INC, to the short side. Looked like Cephus stumbled a little bit when trying to play the ball.
+ Gain of 9 on a half roll hitch.
+ Half roll gain of 8 on comeback route on a p-and-10 late in the 1H vs Northwestern.
WR 4 AJ TAYLOR (5-11, 200, Sr., Kansas City)
* Four-star recruit, ranked No. 208 in the nation and No. 4 in New Jersey.
* A summer commitment, he had offers from Harvard, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, K-State, Nebraska, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Maryland.
* Second-leading receiver with 14 catches.
* Six catches combined in the last three games.
* Had seven catches for 78 yards vs CMU.
+ 14-yard out route, off play action, to the field, on the first play of the game last week.
* Quick feet in traffic on a jet sweep to the short side in the red zone vs Michigan for a gain of 12 to the 2-yard line.
WR 3 KENDRIC PRYOR (5-11, 180, Jr., Homewood, Ill.)
* A 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 21 in Illinois.
* Had offers from Army, Iowa, Iowa State, MACs.
* Has seven catches on the year, including a 33 yarder.
= Carried for a gain of 6 on a fly sweep last week.
* UW offensive coordinator says Pryor is a dynamic talent and needs to get the ball more. I haven’t seen evidence of that but I don’t doubt it.
WR 6 Danny Davis (6-0, 194, Jr., Springfield, Ohio)
* Four-star recruit, ranked No. 98 in the nation, No. 3 in Ohio and No. 13 at WR.
* Committed during signing week after visiting Wisconsin, Kentucky, Oregon and West Virginia.
* 11 catches on the year.
+ A sideline hitch for about 8 yards vs off coverage early in the Northwestern game.
TE 84 JAKE FERGUSON (6-5, 246, Soph., Madison, Wis.)
* Three-star 5.7 recruit, ranked No. 5 in Wisconsin, and the No. 24 TE in the nation.
* Had offers from Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska.
+ Play action one-handed juggling catch on a 4-yard corner route last week.
* Dantonio said Ferguson is the best TE they have faced this year. That comment surprised me a little bit, because Ferguson is not a prolific pass catcher. I suspect Dantonio was mainly talking about Ferguson’s blocking.
* 11 receptions, averages 20 yards receiving per game. Has 1 TD.
(TE 85 Cormac Sampson, 6-4, 280, R-Fr.)
* Plays in two-TE sets as a yackle.
* No catches on the year.
OFFENSIVE LINE: Methodical, engulfing.
* They’re like a group of five big storm troopers. Blunt object effectiveness.
* They aren’t quick and don’t aim to be. They are methodical and patient even when pulling. They just wall you.
* But they have good balance and agility. The center, right guard and right tackle were high school basketball players.
* On the o-line, they don’t try to drive off the ball and blast you. They are a little slow and they play a little high and just try to methodically engulf you and lean on you and absorb defenders like a sponge and let Taylor look for cracks of daylight. It’s effective, but I really am not sure how this will do against a good defensive line like Michigan State. I’m intrigued to find out.
* MSU’s Jacub Panasiuk missed the fourth quarter last week with a lower body injury. No word from Michigan State on how he’s doing. I would list him as questionable.
If he doesn’t play, Drew Beesley can hold up for awhile. But they’ll need a third wheel. Jack Camper played two or three snaps last week. They need him now. If any of the top three go down, and Panasiuk is not available, I have no idea who the new No. 3 would be.
Wisconsin offensive linemen: There’s not much need to go into specifics on these guys. They all play well. I didn’t see any negative plays out of any of them.
**
Tressel on Wisconsin’s OL: “They are huge dudes, always, right? That’s Wisconsin. They take extreme pride in what they do and they’re pretty good. That’s a pretty neat deal when your whole offense is made through the offensive line and everybody knows it.
“They know if they get a body on a body and cover people up, their back’s going to find holes. Any crease can be the distance.”
Here’s there measureables and background:
LT 71 COLE VAN LANEN (6-5, 312, Jr., Green Bay, Wis.)
* Four-star recruit, ranked No. 2 in Wisconsin and the No. 17 OT in the nation.
LG 78 JASON ERDMANN (6-6, 328, Sr., Richfield, Wis.)
* Was a no-star walk-on defensive tackle.
* Had offers from Montana State, North Dakota State, Northern Illinois.
C 61 TYLER BIADASZ (6-3, 321, Jr.)
* 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 6 in Wisconsin and No. 50 in the nation at DT.
* Summer commitment with MAC offers.
++ First play of the game last week, the Kent State nose tackle tried to two-gap Biadasz and Biadasz bashed him 5 yards downfield like a kid on a kick scooter.
RG 70 JOSH SELTZNER (6-4 ,327, Soph., Columbus, Wis.)
* Unranked walk-on.
* Had offers from Indiana State and North Dakota.
+ Good combo block with the center, out on the LB on a 21-y ard zone lead TD run last week.
* This guy impresses me a tad more than the others.
++ pulled on a power off left tackle for a 5-yard TD, turned the corner, didn’t look like he was moving with much force, and then when he turned the corner and got into a LB, he crashed him, and sealed him inside.
RT 60 LOGAN BRUSS (6-5, 310, Soph., Kimberly, Wis.)
* 5.7 three-star recruit, ranked No. 4 in Wisconsin and the No. 21 OG in the nation.
* Spring commitment had offers from Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska.
DEFENSE
* They are a base 2-4-5 if you are in 3-WR.
* Michigan State will play 12 personnel (one RB, two TEs) about 15 to 20 percent of the time. Wisconsin could counter with a base 3-4 when Michigan State goes two TEs. Wisconsin will play some base 3-4 and showed it against Northwestern and Michigan a time or two.
* Wisconsin is multiple in their coverages, like most teams. They are comfortable playing single-safety deep and outnumbering you in the box.
While outnumbering you, they will confuse you as to who is blitzing and from where. They get you on your heels and keep pressing.
They swarm and hit and tackle.
Their best player is No. 56 the OLB, Baun. He’s the most underrated player in the Big Ten.
+ They have second-stringers in the back seven at safety who are better than most teams’ starters.
* In this way, Wisconsin once again is an example of how Michigan State needs to continue to build and process as a program: Evaluation in recruiting, and aspire to play two deep at all positions on defense.
WHAT HAS WORKED AGAINST WISCONSIN
* QB draw by Northwestern.
* Kent State’s QB on a zone read keeper for a gain of 18. Ducked inside of slowish LB Sanborn (57) made strong safety Reggie Pearson miss a tackle.
* Northwestern sprung a 30-yard gain from RB Anderson’s son on a simple inside zone. 92 (back-up DT Henningsen) for Wisconsin got too far up field while turning his back to the ball. MLB Orr fast-flow run blitzed into the gap and had Anderson flat-footed, but Anderson just side-stepped him and accelerated.
Pretty good run, came close to being stopped for no gain but popped out. Hard play for Michigan State to simulate. Nine times out of 10, Wisconsin would have stopped that gain for a meager gain.
+ Michigan completed a pass to WR Ronnie Bell on their first play for 65 yards. It was a simple all-curl pattern. Patterson didn’t see anything, scrambled to his right and Bell came open on a scramble rules backyard play. CB, I didn’t see which one, missed a tackle at the catch.
DEFENSIVE LINE: Mixed Bag, Mostly Good
* Their d-line is a curiosity. Their individuals are good when two-gapping, but not good against double-teams vs inside zones. But they are quite good at getting penetration vs outside zones. Usually if you have guys that are good at two of those things, they are good at everything.
Strange. They aren’t good vs. double teams. Write that down.
DE 97 ISAIAHH LOUDERMILK (6-7, 293, Jr., Howard, Kan.)
* 5.7 three-star recruit, ranked No. 4 in Kansas and the No. 30 strong side DE in the country.
* Took official visits to Kansas State and Oregon.
+ Plays with good athletic coil, and get get off a single-team block, or stuff it with a two-gap. HOWEVER, for a guy who is so good as a single-team two-gapper, he isn’t nearly as good vs double teams.
= Will give up a yard of movement against a good double team.
NT 91 BRYSON WILLIAMS (6-2, 300, Soph.)
* 5.5 three-star recruit ranked No. 3 in Nebraska.
* Summer commitment had offers from Air Force, Duke, Iowa, Ivy Leagues, Iowa State, Kansas State, Nebraska, Va Tech.
* No opinion.
(95 Keeanu Benton, 6-4, 315, Fr.)
* Not good at all vs double-teams, vs Michigan or Northwestern.
DE 93 GARRETT RAND (6-2, 279, Jr., Chandler, Ariz.)
* Four-star recruit ranked No. 218 in the nation, No. 5 in Arizona and No. 19 at DT.
* October commitment also took an official visit to UCLA.
* Not great vs double teams, like the others.
* Good quickness and agility when stunting.
(92 Matt Henningsen, 6-3, 286, Soph.)
* Good as a two-gapper when taking you head-on.
* Runs well. Quick coil type of athlete.
* Good agility when he stunts.
- Not great vs double-teams.
+ Sack vs Wisconsin, knifing inside, going first as the first man on a stunt. OL so worried about the loop man that the first man knifed inside and kept driving.
LINEBACKERS: Quickness on the edge, sturdy up the middle.
OLB 56 ZACH BAUN (6-3, 235, Sr., Brown Deer, Wis.)
* 5.5 three-star recruit ranked No. 3 in Wisconsin.
* Committed in January over an offer from South Dakota State.
* Change of direction, acceleration.
* OUTSTANDING Player. Impact player in the Big Ten this year.
* Was added to the Bednarik Watch list this week - which means the Bednarik people didn’t know who he was during the summer.
* Had 2.5 sacks last year but pretty much had a nondescript season in his first year as a starter.
* Missed 2017 with a foot injury.
+ Quick head-and-shoulder fakes, punches with good power, can run the hoop, then accelerate for closing speed. That pretty much covers it, and that’s why he looks like first-team All-Big Ten material.
Howard griffith on UW defense:
“They run an odd front with three defensive linemen and it makes it hard for offenses to understand where rushers are coming from. Baun has been the MVP of the defense. He can step up and make plays all over the place. He can cover players on the back end and can rush the passer and play the run. Very slippery, can bend the edge.”
(OLB 59 Tyler Johnson, 6-3, 241, Sr., Menasha, Wis., comes off the bench, three-time Academic All-Big Ten, two career starts. Reliable guy, gives Baun a couple of snaps of breathing time each game.)
ILB 54 CHRIS ORR (6-0, 224, Sr., Desoto, Texas)
* Two-star recruit ranked No. 184 in Texas by ESPN.
* Offers from Nevada and North Texas.
* he is a plus player.
* Was Big Ten Defensive Player of the week after the Northwestern game.
+ Good one-step quickness, goes from 0 to 60 quickly and closes quickly. Quick to the hole.
+ Cross key blitz for a sack last week.
* Contact player. Gets off of blocks. Plays bigger than his size.
ILB 57 JACK SANBORN (6-2, 232, Soph., Lake Zurich, Ill.)
* Four-star recruit ranked No. 4 in Illinois and the No. 11 ILB in the nation.
* Committed as a junior with offers from Iowa, Michigan State, Iowa State, Duke and others.
- Missed a tackle last week on a QB zone read keeper.
* Average speed sideline to sideline.
- Also missed a tackle when Kent State RB turned the corner for a gain of 8.
- Average speed to the flat but good heavy pass break up on a TE out route on a p-and-10 vs Northwestern, ball was slow in getting there.
(Leo Chenal, Fr., Grantsburg, Wis.)
* 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 3 in Wisconsin and No. 37 ILB in the nation.
* September commitment had an offer from South Dakota State.
* Had a sack vs Kent State last week.
OLB 41 NOAH BURKS (6-2, 240, Jr. Carmel, Ind.)
* Four-star recruit ranked No. 4 in Indiana and the No. 21 OLB in the nation.
* Summer commitment had offers from Boston College, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota.
+ Hard hit on masquerading RB Ben Mason caused a fumble early in the game near the goal line.
* This is the guy you have to try to run right at. He’s good, but he doesn’t have good size for an end man. Neither does Baun. Theoretically, you should be able to avalanche their OLBs a little bit.
(50 Izayah Green-May, 6-6, 221, Soph.)
DEFENSIVE BACKS: Untested
We haven’t seen their DBs get tested. Firstly, the QBs of Northwestern and Michigan have been awful against Wisconsin. Secondly, the Wisconsin pass rush has prevented QBs from consistently having a chance to find their marks.
At some point, some team is going to pass protect against Wisconsin and we’ll see how good these DBs are. Can Michigan State become that team? Maybe for awhile. But Michigan State will spring some leaks against Wisconsin’s pass rush.
CB 1 FAION HICKS (5-10, 185, Soph.)
* 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 96 in Florida and No. 58 athlete.
* October commitment, took an official visit to Appalachian State, Iowa State. Had offers from Cincinnati, Illinois, FAU, South Florida, UCF, mid-majors.
* He was too thin on his zone coverage on a third-down conversion against Northwestern.
SS 2 REGGIE PEARSON (5-10, 197 R-Fr., River Rouge, Mich.)
* 5.7 three-star recruit.
* Ranked No. 10 in Michigan and the No. 32 safety in the nation.
* Committed prior to his junior year in high school.
* Ended up with offers from Arkansas, Iowa State, Syracuse. Michigan State had not yet offered at the time of his commitment.
- Missed an open field tackle on the QB last week.
(SS 18 Colin Wilder, 5-10, 194, Jr., Katy, Texas)
* Aggressive, straight-line hitter.
* Transfer from Houston.
* Former three-star recruit, ranked No. 77 in Texas.
* Personal foul when he took out the QB low while the QB was carrying out a zone read fake. The ball had been handed off, but 18 was blitzing, and blitzed hard, and sawed the QB’s legs off.
+ Hard-tackling psycho type. Dan Fortener plus.
* He comes off the bench and might be better than the starter, Pearson.
FS 25 ERIC BURRELL (6-0, 195, Jr.)
* 5.7 three-star recruit ranked No. 17 in Maryland, No. 37 safety in the nation.
* October commitment also took official visits to Nebraska, Boston College, Syracuse.
+ INT vs Michigan on a pass deflected by a defensive lineman.
CB 8 DERON HARRELL (6-2, 182, Soph., Denver, Col.)
* Unranked, two-star recruit by Rivals.com. Ranked No. 5 in Colorado by ESPN.
* Wisconsin was his only offer.
- Beaten deep by a 35-yard go route last week vs Kent State, but the WR couldn’t hold on. Harrell seemed to have a miscommunication with the safety during a switch release out of a stacked WR formation. Look for Michigan State to test No. 8 with stacked receivers.
N 5 RACHAD WILDGOOSE (5-11, 197, Soph., Miami, Fla.)
* 5.7 three star recruit ranked No. 90 in Florida.
* Committed on signing day. Also took official visits to Georgia, Pitt, UCF.
* Hard-hitting, ball-hawking guy who lives up to his name. He’ll be All-Big Ten before he’s done.
+ Hard hit sniffing out a third-and-seven screen vs Northwestern, in off quarters.
SPECIAL TEAMS NOTES
* punt returner Dunn with a couple of good, get-north 10-yard punt returns in the first half against Michigan.
* 1 Avon Cruickshank (5-9, 161) returned the opening kickoff against Northwestern for 46 yards.
* Their punt team often plays for the return. They could be susceptible to a fake.
* Their kicker, Collin Larsh, is 2 of 5. His long on the year is 36 yards. He is 0-for-2 from beyond 40.
* As for MSU’s Matt Coghlin, Dantonio said field goal pressure might have had an impact on his missed field goal last week. This is obviously a big problem, all the way around. One more miss and we’re into Bill Stoyanovich yips territory.
ADD IT ALL UP
* Michigan State has the capacity to contain the run and make Coan beat them. Even if Lewerke is able to cut through the wind for 225 yards passing … even if Michigan State plays up in those areas, what makes you think Michigan State will limit its mistakes?
Dropped passes, missed field goals, pre-snap procedure penalties, the occasional strange missed tackle or gap error, add the specter of confusing, quick pressures against mediocre offensive tackles and the possibility of holding penalities killing Michigan State drives is much larger than holding penalties hurting Wisconsin.
Michigan State is capable of winning this game but I don’t anticipate the operation being mistake-free enough to carry out the task. That being said, Wisconsin isn’t as good as its numbers.
By Jim Comparoni
MADISON, Wis. - Let’s cut to the chase.
I would take Ohio State to beat Wisconsin by at least 10 if they played this weekend, maybe more. That gives you an idea of what I think about Wisconsin.
The Badgers do a few things very well. They are a knuckleball, and they benefit from their oddness.
But the Badgers are not a complete team. Their QB is not good or comfortable (or perhaps not trusted) on third-and-medium, much less third-and-long.
Wisconsin boasts some hellacious stats this year. But the more I watched them, especially their game against Northwestern, the more I gave Michigan State a chance to compete in this game and possibly win.
Get them in third-and-medium on a regular basis, and third-and-long more than occasionally, and they become quite pedestrian, even archaic.
The trick is to hold firm and tough long enough on first and second down to get them into third down. Michigan wasn’t able to do that.
How do you do that?
1. Stop the run. That’s easy to say, hard to do. Northwestern did it with firm defensive tackle play vs interior double-team blocks. Michigan State can replicate that.
2. Cover the RBs on short passes (swing passes, short wheels, angle routes). That might mean skewing safeties a little bit away from WR threats, but sometimes you have to rob Peter to pay Paul. Wisconsin is much more likely to try to nickle-and-dime you with short passes to the RB or TE than to attack you deep. I didn’t see ONE intermediate pass (thrown between 11 and 20 yards) in the eight quarters I charted (4Qs vs Northwestern, 1H vs Michigan and Kent State). That tells me they don’t trust QB Jack Coan to make intricate reads and throws.
Stop the run and MAKE Coan attempt intricate reads and throws. If you get him to third-and-medium or third-and-long in a tight game, let’s see how he does.
Third-and-medium at midfield, by the way, is usually a run play for Wisconsin. They will come back on fourth-and-two with the hippo backfield (two reserve offensive linemen as fullbacks) and pick up fourth-and-two with no problem, against other opponents anyway.
3. Look for change-ups on p-and-10 (p-and-10 is the first play of the drive). Wisconsin will go “off the board” and do something different on the first play of a drive. That might mean a roll-out pass, a play-action pass, zone read, lead draw. They won’t run their staple powers or counters on p-and-10. They’ll do something a little different on p-and-10. It’s obviously scripted that way. Be ready for a change-up on p-and-10.
Wisconsin can be predictable, but that doesn’t mean you can stop them. Michigan surely couldn’t. Michigan was without DT Michael Dwumfour in that game. He’s back and he makes a difference. If he had played in the game, Wisconsin still would have won but it wouldn’t have looked so much like men vs boys.
So Here’s The First Question:
1a. Is Michigan State equipped AND fresh enough to stand firm on defense against Wisconsin?
On paper, on reputation, on eye test, the answer SHOULD be yes. Or, in the least, Michigan State has as good a chance as anyone on Wisconsin’s schedule to stand firm against the run.
This was THE initial question mark of the Michigan State vs Ohio State game too. Michigan State was excellent in this area for the first quarter and a half. But then came the 67-yard back-breaking inside zone which gave OSU a 24-10 lead (this came after the 60-yard error which made it 10-0, and the third-and-five error on the 35-yard QB run which fueled the drive that made it 17-7). Errors compounded errors in those situations with Joe Bachie going for a strip at the 7-yard line rather than securing a tackle and living to play another down on the play that made it 17-7. And Josiah Scott making the same mistake at the 20-yard line on the 67-yard run.
Michigan State coaches have been harping on their players to do their job, don’t play hero ball, play tough, stay tough, keep your eyes right, and tackle. Do that against Ohio State, and that game is close heading deep into the third quarter, guaranteed. No need for superman heroics. Just don’t beat yourself and you’re in that OSU game against arguably the best team in the country.
Back to the question: Is Michigan State equipped to stop the run?
1b. The Spartans gave up 323 yards on the ground to OSU. Did that leave a psychological and physical mark? Are more bad ground games coming up for Michigan State? Wisconsin is as tough a test in that category as you can find.
Some teams give up a figure, once in awhile. Ole Miss rushed for 279 against Alabama a couple of weeks ago. Sometimes your fastball isn’t working. Defense doesn’t ALWAYS travel, these days.
My biggest question: Will there be a carryover effect for Michigan State? The OSU game was physical. Will it be hard for Michigan State to snap back and play four more quarters with hammer vs nail toughness?
Michigan State lacked depth last week on defense. Linebackers wore down, and they could have used more depth and freshness (especially mentally) in the secondary.
Wisconsin DOES go deep on defense. They play multiple LBs without much of a dropoff, and reserve DBs play extensively too. That’s part of what makes Wisconsin’s defense good (they lead the nation in scoring defense with three shutouts).
Coming out of the OSU game, MSU’s lack of serviceable, trustworthy depth on defense became THE biggest sticking point between Michigan State having a very good defense and an elite defense capable of containing a team like OSU for four quarters. That was my takeaway immediately after the game, and Michigan State d-coordinator Mike Tressel pretty much said the same thing during interviews on Tuesday.
Tressel said he wants to play back-up LBs more. He said it without being prompted, without me leading him on the question. He wants to develop those guys. In this game, Tressel says they need to run more linebackers onto the field. They need more bodies in order to hold firm vs. all these collisions.
The problem is that he and Michigan State, if they do this, will be relying on guys like Noah Harvey, Jeslord Boateng and Chase Kline to play their first meaningful snaps ever. That’s a dangerous proposition, but one that Michigan State plans to explore this week. What will it look like, if they pull the pin and try it? You’ll know when I know.
Last week, MSU’s first-time starter at cornerback, Kalon Gervin, also struggled. Will Josh Butler be back? That’s the expectation. Butler isn’t great, but his tackling was needed on a couple of those busts.
Michigan State wore down against OSU. Pace of play, and the anxiety/intensity of that particular game had something to do with it. Wisconsin will play slower, which will make things a little more manageable for Michigan State.
Getting back to the question:
1c. Will it be harder to play four physical quarters of run defense against this outstanding Wisconsin rush offense because Michigan State is coming off of four physical, taxing quarters just seven days ago?
I have to believe the answer is yes. Michigan State might be down one defensive end in Jacub Panasiuk. Is there a weardown effect on Joe Bachie, Tyriq Thompson and Antjuan Simmons, as well as Xavier Henderson?
Meanwhile, Wisconsin is fresh as a daisy. They had a bye week prior to the Michigan game. They curb-stomped Michigan. Then the Badgers slumbered vs Northwestern (more on that game later) and had a walk-through against Kent State last week.
They haven’t left the state of Wisconsin since the last weekend of August. They have been home seven straight weeks, when counting the bye week. They are poised and primed to kill their next victim at Camp Randall. And by the way, this is another nice little test by which they can measure themselves.
All things point toward Wisconsin being primed for an A-game, and Michigan State struggling to try to muscle through its soreness to wring out four quality quarters of defensive football.
I’m confident in saying that Michigan State’s run defense would offer good resistance vs the Badger ground game if the game were played in East Lansing under otherwise equal circumstances (if Michigan State wasn’t coming off a physical, somewhat demoralizing loss at Ohio State and if Wisconsin weren’t coming off a creampuff game, two weeks after a red letter win, three weeks after a bye week). Michigan State is battered (but driven).
With Michigan State having lost 34-10 and taken on a lot of water last week at OSU, that SHOULD be a big net positive for Wisconsin. (The old football axiom: It’s not which team you’re playing, but WHEN you play them and WHERE you play them. Wisconsin benefits big-time in the latter).
But could the OSU lessons be a positive for Michigan State? Michigan State is sore, but not yet completely battered - at least I don’t think they are. Not yet. After this game, they might be.
But, for now, Michigan State has had the “benefit” of having been on the field with a truly elite team. As good as Wisconsin is, they don’t present as many problems as OSU. Michigan State is prepped this week with the Ohio State standard in mind. That can help.
Having lost to OSU, Michigan State is the team that NEEDS to win this game - probably more than Wisconsin feels the need to win. That means something in college and pro football. It’s probably worth a touchdown. Wisconsin will be up, but will they be as desperate as Michigan State? Last week Michigan State was the more desperate, motivated team at the outset, and you saw Michigan State play extremely well early on defense in the first quarter, but probably burned more early-game fuel than is ideal.
Wisconsin is good. But the numbers are about to come back down to earth a little bit, with games against tougher opponents on the horizon.
The numbers:
* Wisconsin outscored its non-conference opponents (South Florida, Central Michigan, Kent State) 158-0.
* Wisconsin is out-scoring its opponents 135-3 in the first half.
* Wisconsin is ranked No. 1 in the nation in scoring defense at 5.8 PPG.
FINAL ANALYSIS FIRST
* I give Michigan State a solid chance to contain the run for three quarters. In the meantime, does Michigan State do enough to capitalize? Does Michigan State complement good run defense with quality pass defense, with limited penalties on both sides of the ball, with no turnovers on offense, with no missed field goals? Does Michigan State get off the field with good tackling on a third-and-six swing pass to the running back?
Michigan State will need all of those other things to come up aces in order to complement the possibility of good run defense.
If Michigan State is good in those other areas, then MSU’s defense won’t spend as much time on the field, will get off the field on third down, and will have the piss and vinegar to keep chopping wood in the fourth quarter.
* Contain the run and Wisconsin is not difficult to contain on third-and-medium or longer. Write that down.
* A lot of this is like the OSU recipe from last week. Michigan State was on course, but barfed it away with two early turnovers and some uncharacteristic lack of discipline on defense on four crippling plays in the second quarter.
Maybe MSU’s defense wouldn’t have been as undisciplined in the second quarter if Michigan State’s offense hadn’t turned the ball over on two of its first four plays, or whatever it was. That created back-to-the-wall anxiety way too early for the Michigan State defense, and I think it had an impact on the fuel tank (and Tressel does too).
* MSU’s run defense has a solid chance to do its job in this game against the most prolific RB in the country. But the run defense needs everyone else to do their job as well.
* As was the case last week, stopping the run and containing the offense is only half of the job. Equally daunting is the task of operating against the opposing defense.
Wisconsin has been handcuffing everyone. But you can make the case that they have played three poor mid-majors, and two of the worst offenses in the Big Ten in Michigan and Northwestern. That would all be true.
Wisconsin is quick, direct, physical on defense. They are great on third-and-long. They shape-shift and confuse you, and they get home with a quality pass rush.
Michigan State has moved the ball against everyone, including a powerful Ohio State defense. Michigan State moved the ball well enough to score 21 points against OSU. Not many teams are going to break 20 against the Buckeyes this year.
If Brian Lewerke completes the open pass to Cody White, and if he sees wide-open Trenton Gillison on the pass interference play in the third quarter, there’s your 21 points.
Ifs and buts and candy and nuts, I know.
But MSU’s offense played better than the 10 points it finished with. That doesn’t help anyone now, but it gives reason to believe they CAN produce points against good defenses going forward. Like Lewerke said after the game, they need to finish. In this case, he needed to finish. He knows that better than anyone. He was good last week, excellent at times, and almost excellent for the entire game. He said he felt the rush a little bit on both of those plays. That’s understandable.
* Wisconsin’s pass rush is good. They do it with numbers and confusing alignments, along with OLB Zach Baun, who is a quick, slippery, stand-up end, who plays like a Big Ten version of Von Miller.
I can’t tell if their pass defense is difficult to read, or if they have just played against some putrid passing attacks. I think it’s a little bit of both. And I would expect Michigan State to have the capacity to present Wisconsin with the best passing game it has faced this year.
HOWEVER, can we expect Lewerke to shed his trend this year of struggling to make the finishing play in the red zone? Can we expect the pass protection to be good enough for four quarters? Can we expect the receivers to shed their season-long trend of dropping one out of every five passes (23 dropped passes, 104 completions). According to Pro Football Focus, Lewerke leads the nation in dropped passes. Many of those passes are the fault of the receivers, of course, but I am beginning to wonder about Lewerke. We all know that there are some QBs who throw wonderfully “catchable” balls. If that description exists for some, might the opposite exist for others? If so, is Lewerke in the latter category? At times, he is.
* Can Michigan State complement what it hopes to be an effective pass game with a good ground game? Michigan State chipped in a few more good runs against OSU than I expected. Michigan State showed some progress with some of its tailback run plays, with Elijah Collins averaging 5.2 yards per carry.
Sack numbers, and the need to abandon the run due to the scoreboard, aborted what might have turned out to be a nice little 130-yard day on the ground.
Now, Michigan State will play a swarming type of Wisconsin defense that is not as firm at defensive tackle as Ohio State. Wisconsin plays with quickness at outside linebacker, but a good running attack can put a hole in these guys. Is Michigan State a good running attack? No. Not yet. On a good day, MSU’s ground attack is serviceable. That’s what Michigan State has to hope for on this day, and it’s possible that they can achieve that, judging by the handful of good moments the ground game provided last week.
Michigan State of course is not going to win a game on its ground attack alone. But Michigan State is averaging 144 yards rushing per game. Collins is averaging 5.3 yards per carry. Mix in some well-timed Lewerke contributions afoot and MSU’s ground game can be expected to do enough of its part to help Michigan State win, as long as the pass game doesn’t implode, special teams doesn’t choke and the defense can keep a clear head.
Not exactly a clean bill of mental and physical health, but that’s Michigan State football in 2019, halfway through the season.
* Mark Dantonio challenged his team to play a perfect game at Ohio State. Michigan State was as messy as usual, but still traded blows at times quite impressively with a true super heavyweight.
Michigan State is aiming for perfection again this week. Wisconsin isn’t so great that you NEED to be perfect. But Michigan State is in no position to believe it can overcome its usual slippage and beat this team, in this environment and these circumstances.
TRENDS & INTANGIBLES
* Forecasts expect winds of 17 to 28 mph, and temps in the 40s. That will help keep the game lower-scoring, and in theory that should help Michigan State. But Michigan State needs a strong game from the passing attack more than Wisconsin. The wind will be an extra defender for a decent, not great, Wisconsin pass defense.
* Michigan State usually doesn’t get rolled two straight weeks. The last 11 times Michigan State has lost by double digits, the Spartans have have gone 10-1 the following week. The one loss was last year at Nebraska. When Michigan State loses bad, Dantonio usually rallies them the following week. But look back and tell me when they have ever played two straight road games against Top 10 teams and needed to answer like this. Tell me the last time any team has played two straight road games against Top 10 teams. It’s probably not a favorable formula.
* Lewerke’s legs need to be a factor. QB zone read keepers and QB draws (by Northwestern) have had some success against Wisconsin. But watch out. Wisconsin’s DBs are head hunters. I’ve seen them called for two personal fouls with unnecessary roughness hits on QB, including one on Michigan’s Dylan McCaffrey that he’s still recovering from.
* BTN’s Dave Wannstedt: “I like Michigan State in this game. They are going to handle the run. Wisconsin doesn’t present the big dual threat that Ohio State did. I like this matchup, I truly do, for Michigan State.”
My Take: Good point. Coach knows more about this stuff than I do. The run threat of QB Zach Fields was a big, big difference maker last week - maybe THE difference-maker, in terms of creating game-breaking plays, and getting out of negative plays to elongate plays. Fields’ run threat even had an impact on the 67-yard TD run by Dobbins. Fields sold the keeper fake on that play, and drew Michigan State safety Xavier Henderson to run two false steps toward him. That took Henderson out of position to rally to Dobbins.
Whether or not Henderson was assigned to the Fields run on that play, I don’t know. But carrying out the run fake moved the safety. Coan won’t move safeties with the threat of the run fake. Coan MIGHT keep it once or twice in key situations, but not on a generic third-and-two situation, as was the case on the 67-yard TD by Dobbins.
The dual threat of Fields was everything.
Coan will be easy to defend, by comparison.
THINGS TO DO
When Michigan State is on defense:
* Stay alive on first and second down, give them third down and 4 yards or more, and they can become very, very pedestrian, even archaic.
* The difficult part is holding them to 6 yards total on first and second down.
* Cover the running backs in pass coverage on third-and-medium.
* They don’t pass much, but when they do, they like hitches and slants. If you play off coverage, you can bait the into a slant. Jump the slant and get a tip-drill interception. Northwestern’s Bergin did this, got a tip, but the potential INT fell to the turf.
Later, Northwestern dropped a d-end into the flat and nearly had a pick-six on a short wheel to the RB Taylor.
* If you watch Paul Chryst play cards long enough and you see a pattern.
Wisconsin loves to call a pass play on the first play of a drive (known as p-and-10). The first play of a drive is usually something a little off-the-board for Wisconsin, like a play action pass, or a pistol zone read, or a draw play, or a roll-out pass, or a max pro deep shot. It usually isn’t one of their staple powers or counters.
Northwestern sent a safety blitz at them on a p-and-10 and got a sack midway through the 2Q.
Should we expect Wisconsin to break tendency? No. Tressel mentioned this week that when they have gone over their Wisconsin notes over the years, something that always comes up is: They are who they are, what you see on film is what they’re going to present to you.
So look for change-ups to continue on p-and-10. Use that to your advantage and put them in second-and-long at the outset of the drive. Northwestern had success with this. From there, Northwestern contained the run on second down.
When Michigan State is on offense:
* Wisconsin’s base defense against a 3-WR offense is a 2-4-5. Two down linemen. Two stand-up defensive end/OLBs. Two ILBs. And five DBs.
When Wisconsin is in a two-down front, go ahead and double-team one of those DTs and run an inside zone at them. Their defensive tackles are good at a lot of things but from what I’ve seen they are not all that good against double-teams. They can be moved. Northwestern did it more than a few times.
Run right at them, get three or four yards that way, and get some body blows established.
* Their stand-up defensive ends are quick and correct, and they get off blocks. But they are linebackers. They aren’t big. They lack a little heft with their stand-up defensive ends. Their OLBs are active and productive, partly because they are quick and aggressive.
Theoretically you should be able to run right at them and test them at the POA (point of attack).
Northwestern tried to pull a guard, trap them and kick out No. 41, the lesser of their two OLBs. That might be the best mode for Michigan State because the blocking of MSU’s tackle/TE double team is not good enough to take advantage of Wisconsin’s lack of heft at the stand-up ends.
On a p-and-10 midway through the 3Q, Northwestern pulled the front side guard and led with the guard ducking INSIDE the tight end, with a TE sealing 41 to the outside. They picked up a nice 4-yard gain. That’s something, if you can then complement it with decent play-action passing, which Northwestern is unable to do.
Bottom line: Northwestern ran at No. 41 to the outside, believing he wouldn’t defeat the block and disrupt the play. Northwestern added a gap by pulling the guard and folding him around the tackle.
A good team can get something by running right at No. 41. Is Michigan State a good team? Not in this area of the game, but you have to try. Something can be accomplished in this part of the matchup.
GAME WITHIN THE GAME
* Wisconsin’s defense has been great on third-and-seven or longer. I heard a stat that Wisconsin’s opponents are something like 1 for 39 on third down when it’s third-and-eight or longer.
Lewerke said Wisconsin blitzes 67 percent of the time on third-and-medium.
“They are going to pressure you and after watching film from last week, every team is probably going to pressure us, but them especially,” Lewerke said.
Ouch. Not a glowing endorsement of his pass protection. Lewerke might be starting to feel like he’s on an island, due to the the dropped passes and the inconsistent protection (MSU’s pass pro was No. 1 in the Big Ten prior to last week, but that might have been a misleading stat).
Lewerke says they blitz two-thirds of the time on third-and-long. But I saw a couple of outliers in the Northwestern game.
Northwestern converted back-to-back third-and-8 and third-and-7 on one drive in the 2Q against Wisconsin. Wisconsin blitzed neither time, and played off coverage.
* On a third-and-8 with 7 minutes to go in the 1H. Northwestern completed a 7-yard in route against off coverage to second-string WR J.J. Jefferson.
The coverage turned out to be off quarters, but it’s hard to tell if it’s man or off quarters until a couple of beats into play.
On that play, Wisconsin CB Faion Hicks (No. 1) played it too thin to the outside and allowed a few yards after the catch for the conversion, or else teams would be 0 for 39 on third and long, if that stat is accurate.
* Northwestern: third-and-seven, vs off quarters. Outside WR cleared out, the inside WR ran a hook vs zone-dropping corner for a gain of 8, tackled on the spot.
**
Wisconsin went away from its mode of operation on those two plays. Northwestern converted, but there was no room for yards after the catch.
Michigan State has not been an explosive team through the air. They have been a possession-oriented pass team, when they’ve managed to hang onto passes. Being a possession-oriented pass attack is not a good thing if your offense is also prone to dropped passes and offensive penalties, as is the case with Michigan State.
Anyway, getting back to Wisconsin’s third down defense, or Wisconsin’s pass rush in general, their stand-up defensive ends are often joined by a blitzing safety or a blitzing linebacker. Wisconsin walks up the blitzes late. It’s difficult to identify who is blitzing.
Sometimes they will show blitzing numbers on one edge of the formation, but those guys end up dropping into coverage, and a late-developing blitz develops on the other side, sometimes with stunts.
“Stuff like that kind of gets you confused and tries to keep you guessing,” Lewerke said.
+ Wisconsin had 14 tackles for loss against Northwestern.
+ Wisconsin had six sacks on the first 21 Kent State offensive plays last week.
INSIDE WISCONSIN’S OFFENSE
* Wisconsin huddles and plays slow and can possess the ball FOREVER on you.
* Wisconsin held the ball for 41 minutes against Michigan.
* They only had four possessions in the first half last week against Kent State, and they scored TDs on all four possessions, and led 28-0 at the half. That’s about as methodically dominant as you can get.
* Tressel was talking this week about the fact that Wisconsin is one of the few teams remaining that runs super powers and super counters, with more than one puller rumbling down your throat.
“Preparing for them has become like preparing for a service academy team,” Tressel said. “They do things your players aren’t accustomed to seeing.”
Tressel said MSU’s veteran players have background knowledge on how to take on the pullers and some of Wisconsin’s gap schemes.
“Powers and counters, you don’t see those much anymore,” Tressel said. “You might have seen those every week 10 years ago. We used to see them every single day in spring ball and fall camp, but we don’t seem them even in practice that much anymore.
“Our young players, you could see, didn’t have a background on how to take that stuff on,” Tressel said. “So we had three days to teach it.”
* Wisconsin is multiple in its running game. They will use inside zone like everyone else, but they’ll do it with a lead blocker (whether it’s a straight fullback, or a split-zone, wham blocking TE).
* They’ll do their old-fashioned isolation leads, and powers, and super powers (with more than one puller), and counters, and super counters (with more than one puller).
They’ll run the draw play at least once per drive. It’s often a lead draw, out of the I formation, old school stuff.
For a team that passes as infrequently as Wisconsin, it’s strange how well the draw play works. Maybe it works because defenses and defensive players just plain don’t see an I formation lead draw EVER, in practice, in games, in high school, ever.
When is the last time you saw a lead draw in college football? Well, these defensive players around the league haven’t seen them either. A lead draw out of the I formation is as awkward to defenses these days as the no-huddle spread was 12 years ago. (Nebraska on two occasions nearly popped long TD runs on basic fullback trap out of the I formation against Ohio State. Nebraska hadn’t shown that on film. It was something from the Tom Osborne days).
* Wisconsin doesn’t run outside zone as much as they used to. Back in 1993 when Barry Alvarez was getting this started, they would kill you with the outside zone, and the outside stretch (which is an elongated version of the outside zone). They would run that play with Terrell Fletcher. They were a handful.
I only saw one outside zone in the eight quarters I charted (full game vs Northwestern, 1H vs Kent State and Michigan). That was a third-and-five against Northwestern on the opening drive of the 2H. Northwestern’s ILB scraped and tackled RB Jonathan Taylor before he could turn the corner for a gain of 1. Punt.
* Wisconsin has added a little bit of pistol/3-WR formation.
* UW began the UM game in three-wide pistol.
* They ran two RPO slants vs Michigan in the first half. They didn’t look that great at it. I didn’t see any RPOs against Northwestern.
* A little bit of pistol zone read.
* In the pass game, Wisconsin isn’t nearly as downfield-looking, or downfield-explosive as the Bielema teams when Chryst was o-coordinator. Back then, they had a mismatch TE, an NFL WR and Russell Wilson (or Scott Tolzien for that matter).
Now, they don’t seem to trust this QB, Jack Coan. Wisconsin will max pro and throw deep once in awhile, but they are careful, careful, careful with the passing attack.
WISCONSIN’S RESULTS
Wisconsin 49, South Florida 0
Wisconsin 61, Central Michigan 0
Wisconsin 35, Michigan 14
Wisconsin 24, Northwestern 15
Wisconsin 48, Kent State 0
WISCONSIN PERSONNEL
QUARTERBACK: Not impressive.
17 JACK COAN (6-3, 221, Jr., Sayville, NY)
* Four-star recruit, ranked No. 2 in New York.
* Had offers from Indiana, Miami, Michigan, Nebraska, Northwestern and others.
* QB is a game manager. If he doesn’t improve, he will get exposed when an opponent stops the run.
* 7-2 as a starter.
* He is among the nation’s leaders in pass completion percentage at 72 pct. But that’s because he throws short, short, short.
Recent numbers:
13 of 16 vs Michigan for 128 yards.
15 of 24 vs Northwestern for 113 yards.
12 of 15 vs Kent State for 134 yards.
Earlier in the year:
19 of 26 vs South Florida for 201 yards.
26 of 33 vs Central Michigan for 363 yards.
* Whatever sauce he had working against CMU, can he snap back into that against Michigan State? I’ll believe it when I see it.
* He has been shaky on third-downs in the last three games. Not sure if the shakiness is him, or the system, or both.
+ Good job looking off the safety on a deep TD down the right sideline to WR Cephus vs CMU.
+ Good touch on fades to the corner in the red zone.
* Against Michigan, he was 13 of 16 for 128 against Michigan with two TD runs.
+ Solid with play action to the field on a 14-yard out route vs Northwestern.
- Does not make many mistakes. Biggest mistake he made in the first half of the Kent State game was a swing pass to RB Taylor, leading him into a heavy, blind hit from a DB.
- He loves to check down to the easy, short pass. A Kent State drop linebacker anticipated one of those short passes and nearly intercepted a pass intended for the RB last week in zone defense. Coach threw short into a crowd when he other receivers open.
* UW coaches say Coan needs to trust himself more. He is not an envelope pusher. Maybe that’s him and not the system, after all.
* Coan took over as starting QB late last year and secured the job in the Pinstripe Bowl victory over Miami, causing Alex Hornibrook to transfer.
* He favors slants, hitches, roll out short passes, flares to the RB.
- INT late in 1H vs Northwestern. Deep post for 87 Cephus. Middle field wasn’t open. Threw it anyway, good pick-off by safety diving backward to make the play.
Wisconsin, when they go deep, will keep both TEs and two backs in for max pro, with only two WRs out on the route. They’ve done it that way for at least 15 years. At least once a game, usually once a half.
+ Found Pryor on a max pro, 20-yard over route, behind Cephus’ deep go route. UW shifted twice prior to the snap and it was their first play of the drive. When you see a lot of window dressing shifting, and it’s the first play of a drive, chances are it’s a scripted pass play. For a team that doesn’t pass that much, it helps a little to be able to identify when one is coming.
+ Play action half roll flare to RB Taylor for an 18-yard TD pass last week.
THIRD AND LONG REVEAL
I started to notice a trend of careful, non-explosive play from Coan on third downs. So I rewound and rewatched the Northwestern game, and the first half of the Kent State and Michigan games to chart what he did on third down.
The results were not impressive for a team that has been destroying teams on the scoreboard.
3-7: Empty, threw to RB Groshek on a flare for gain of 8 vs Kent State.
3-4: short out route to AJ Taylor. Taylor went in motion, and ran a little jerk/return route. He faked an in route, then jerk-returned to the outside. The high-percentage pass was waiting for him when he came out of his break for a gain of 6.
3-6: comeback to Cephus vs press for gain of 7. 1 by 3 formation. Coan stared him down and threw on time (you can stare someone down when facing press man-to-man).
3-3: first drive vs Michigan, roll out, one read, keep, dive gain of 2 and a half. (Went for it on fourth-and-inches on their own 34-yard line, 2 minutes into the game.)
3-10 vs Michigan 1Q: Shot gun, arm pump fake pass, QB draw. Gain of 7.
4-3: vs Michigan 1H: play action, deep wheel to Cephus vs Ambry THomas for 25 yard over-the-shoulder catch and out of bounds. (That was an outlier. Deep pass on fourth-and-three? Okay. Credit).
3-10 vs Michigan 1H: empty, QB draw, loss of 2.
3-6 vs Northwestern 1H: angle route to Taylor for gain of 15, he was the third receiver to release to that side. (Lesson: Sniff out the RB on pass plays, especially third down).
3-6: vs Northwestern 1H: Bunch right. Late release completion over the middle to the RB at 4 yards, gain of 4. (On fourth down and two: scored a 13-yard TD on a lead out of the hippo group).
3-10: vs Northwestern, 1H:, shot gun draw play to Taylor for gain of 7.
3-5: vs Northwestern 1H: shot gun, looked downfield vs man to man, stepped up in the pocket when his OTs gave up a little bit of edge rush, checked down to the TE, threw a little off-target and he was tackled on the spot for a gain of 2. Not impressive.
3-9 vs Northwestern 1H: Vs man to man, one read, threw it short of the sticks to a well-covered Danny Davis on a 5-yard in route which had little chance to get the first down yardage. The score was 7-3 at the time, with 12 minutes to go in the 1H.
3-16 vs Northwestern 1H: vs zone three man rush, valve check down to RB gain of 10.
3-5: vs Northwestern 2H; outside zone, gain of 1. Punt.
3-5 vs Northwestern 2H: INC to RB on wheel, almost INT by Northwestern d-end dropping into flat on a zone drop. Northwestern completely anticipated Coan checking down to a RB, got a hand on it, almost a big play on defense. Northwestern trailed just 7-3 at the time with 6:20 to go in the 3Q. Northwestern was right in it, and Wisconsin was sputtering, and this was their play choice - check down to the RB. Wisconsin was 4-for-11 on third down after this play.
THE NORTHWESTERN GAME:
Wisconsin’s offense was NOT GOOD against Northwestern.
Wisconsin had only 13 first-downs (compared to 21 for Northwestern).
Total yards: Northwestern 255, Wisconsin 243.
Wisconsin scored a TD on its opening drive but then:
- 5 and out, punt (18 yards total)
- 3 and out, punt.
- 3 and out, punt.
- 3 and out, punt.
- 4 and out, INT.
- 5 and out, end of half.
- 4-and-out, punt (21 yards total)
- 4-and-out, punt (19 yards total)
- 3-and-out, punt
[At this point, it’s a 7-3 game with 2:43 left in the third quarter. But Wisconsin got a sack, fumble into the end zone for a loss of 16 and a defensive touchdown. That made it 14-3 and the game completely changed.]
+ 7-and-out, field goal (41 yards, 17-3 lead).
[Then Wisconsin intercepted a pass and returned it 68 yards for a TD and a 24-3 lead.]
- 3-and-out, punt.
- 4-and-out, punt (17 yards)
- Victory formation.
The Takeaway: Northwestern stopped the inside run with quality defensive tackles and LB pursuit, put Wisconsin in third-and-uncomfortable.
Simple as that.
Was Wisconsin on a hangover after humiliating Michigan? Maybe a little. But this ground offense should be able to operate in its sleep, right?
Northwestern held Wisconsin to 130 yards on 36 carries (3.6 per). The great Jonathan Taylor had 119 yards on 26 carries with a long of 15.
There’s a clear blueprint on how to get the defensive side of this chore done - if you can handle the interior run
Back to the QBs:
(5 Graham Mertz, 6-3, 215, Fr.)
* Four-star recruit, ranked No. 42 in the nation, the No. 2 pro style QB in the nation and No. 1 in Kansas.
* Had offers from Clemson, Alabama, Georgia, Notre Dame, Ohio State and everyone else.
THE BADGER RUN GAME
* Wisconsin’s WRs, TEs and FB are outstanding blockers, helping take the run game to the next level, literally and figuratively.
* Wisconsin brought in two 300-pound, second-string offensive linemen to play fullback, at the same time, in a three-back formation on fourth-down against Michigan, and again on a second-and-goal. They call this the hippo backfield. They even had one of the big dudes shift at pre-snap. It’s just plain something you don’t see every day. When the hippo group is on the field, Wisconsin has about 2,500 pounds of blocking at work.
They have run it in short yardage many times in the last few weeks. It’s effective and demoralizing.
23 JONATHAN TAYLOR (5-11, 219, Jr., Salem, NJ)
* Four-star recruit, ranked No. 208 in the country, No. 4 in New Jersey, and the No. 13 RB in the nation.
* Had offers from Harvard, Navy, Boston College, Rutgers, Va Tech, Washington State, Yale and Army when he committed in November of his senior year. He had earlier committed to Rutgers.
* He was a three-star recruit when he committed to Wisconsin but climbed in the rankings after his senior film was evaluated.
* Gets two or three yards after contact.
* You see his long runs on the highlights. But he’s just as impressive with his garden variety gains of six or seven yards, quickly darting and making one miss, and getting an extra yard through contact at the end of the run.
* Ranks No. 7 all-time in Big Ten rushing (4,916 yards) and will almost certainly surpass Archie Griffin this year and end the season No. 2, Behind Ron Dayne (7,125).
* Leads the team in TOUCHDOWN RECEPTIONS with four.
* Has rushed for at least 100 yards in every game, and had 200-plus against Michigan.
+ Great ability to side step and make the first tackler miss. Elusive when hunting for daylight behind all those mammoth blockers.
* Underrated drive and strength. He can push the pile.
(14 Nakia Watson, 5-11, 229, R-Fr., Austin, Texas)
* 48 carries for 204 yards, 4.2 per, with two TDs.
* 5.7 three-star recruit, ranked No. 69 in Texas.
* Summer commitment also had offers from mid-majors.
(37 Garrett Groshek, 5-11 ,220, Jr., Amherst, Wis.)
* No-star, walk-on.
* Former quarterback.
+ Screen pass for about 20 yards against Michigan.
FB 44 JOHN CHENAL (6-2, 252, Soph., Grantsburg, Wis.)
* Was a no-star, walk-on LB.
(FB 34 Mason Stokke, 6-2, 239, Jr., Menomonie, Wis.)
* Yes, the back-up fullback plays too. He’s quick and he will get into you.
+ Heavy lead block on an ILB on a Taylor 21-yard TD run last week on a simple zone lead.
+ Carried for a gain of 3 on a fourth-and-one last week, with a quick hitter out of the I formation.
+ Spinning gain of 7 on a third-and-two on the opening series against Northwestern, on a fullback dive out of the I formation.
WIDE RECEIVERS: Not much work.
WR 87 QUINTEZ CEPHUS (6-1, 207, Jr.)
* A 5.5 three-star recruit, unranked in Georgia by Rivals.com. Ranked No. 91 in Georgia by ESPN.
* Leading receiver with 17 catches, averaging 52 receiving yards per game. Two TDs. 15.5 yards per catch.
* Has not had more than 36 receiving yards in a game in the past three games.
* Had six catches for 130 yards with two TDs against CMU, including a 46-yarder.
= Went deep to Cephus play action vs press lat week, INC, to the short side. Looked like Cephus stumbled a little bit when trying to play the ball.
+ Gain of 9 on a half roll hitch.
+ Half roll gain of 8 on comeback route on a p-and-10 late in the 1H vs Northwestern.
WR 4 AJ TAYLOR (5-11, 200, Sr., Kansas City)
* Four-star recruit, ranked No. 208 in the nation and No. 4 in New Jersey.
* A summer commitment, he had offers from Harvard, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, K-State, Nebraska, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Maryland.
* Second-leading receiver with 14 catches.
* Six catches combined in the last three games.
* Had seven catches for 78 yards vs CMU.
+ 14-yard out route, off play action, to the field, on the first play of the game last week.
* Quick feet in traffic on a jet sweep to the short side in the red zone vs Michigan for a gain of 12 to the 2-yard line.
WR 3 KENDRIC PRYOR (5-11, 180, Jr., Homewood, Ill.)
* A 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 21 in Illinois.
* Had offers from Army, Iowa, Iowa State, MACs.
* Has seven catches on the year, including a 33 yarder.
= Carried for a gain of 6 on a fly sweep last week.
* UW offensive coordinator says Pryor is a dynamic talent and needs to get the ball more. I haven’t seen evidence of that but I don’t doubt it.
WR 6 Danny Davis (6-0, 194, Jr., Springfield, Ohio)
* Four-star recruit, ranked No. 98 in the nation, No. 3 in Ohio and No. 13 at WR.
* Committed during signing week after visiting Wisconsin, Kentucky, Oregon and West Virginia.
* 11 catches on the year.
+ A sideline hitch for about 8 yards vs off coverage early in the Northwestern game.
TE 84 JAKE FERGUSON (6-5, 246, Soph., Madison, Wis.)
* Three-star 5.7 recruit, ranked No. 5 in Wisconsin, and the No. 24 TE in the nation.
* Had offers from Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska.
+ Play action one-handed juggling catch on a 4-yard corner route last week.
* Dantonio said Ferguson is the best TE they have faced this year. That comment surprised me a little bit, because Ferguson is not a prolific pass catcher. I suspect Dantonio was mainly talking about Ferguson’s blocking.
* 11 receptions, averages 20 yards receiving per game. Has 1 TD.
(TE 85 Cormac Sampson, 6-4, 280, R-Fr.)
* Plays in two-TE sets as a yackle.
* No catches on the year.
OFFENSIVE LINE: Methodical, engulfing.
* They’re like a group of five big storm troopers. Blunt object effectiveness.
* They aren’t quick and don’t aim to be. They are methodical and patient even when pulling. They just wall you.
* But they have good balance and agility. The center, right guard and right tackle were high school basketball players.
* On the o-line, they don’t try to drive off the ball and blast you. They are a little slow and they play a little high and just try to methodically engulf you and lean on you and absorb defenders like a sponge and let Taylor look for cracks of daylight. It’s effective, but I really am not sure how this will do against a good defensive line like Michigan State. I’m intrigued to find out.
* MSU’s Jacub Panasiuk missed the fourth quarter last week with a lower body injury. No word from Michigan State on how he’s doing. I would list him as questionable.
If he doesn’t play, Drew Beesley can hold up for awhile. But they’ll need a third wheel. Jack Camper played two or three snaps last week. They need him now. If any of the top three go down, and Panasiuk is not available, I have no idea who the new No. 3 would be.
Wisconsin offensive linemen: There’s not much need to go into specifics on these guys. They all play well. I didn’t see any negative plays out of any of them.
**
Tressel on Wisconsin’s OL: “They are huge dudes, always, right? That’s Wisconsin. They take extreme pride in what they do and they’re pretty good. That’s a pretty neat deal when your whole offense is made through the offensive line and everybody knows it.
“They know if they get a body on a body and cover people up, their back’s going to find holes. Any crease can be the distance.”
Here’s there measureables and background:
LT 71 COLE VAN LANEN (6-5, 312, Jr., Green Bay, Wis.)
* Four-star recruit, ranked No. 2 in Wisconsin and the No. 17 OT in the nation.
LG 78 JASON ERDMANN (6-6, 328, Sr., Richfield, Wis.)
* Was a no-star walk-on defensive tackle.
* Had offers from Montana State, North Dakota State, Northern Illinois.
C 61 TYLER BIADASZ (6-3, 321, Jr.)
* 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 6 in Wisconsin and No. 50 in the nation at DT.
* Summer commitment with MAC offers.
++ First play of the game last week, the Kent State nose tackle tried to two-gap Biadasz and Biadasz bashed him 5 yards downfield like a kid on a kick scooter.
RG 70 JOSH SELTZNER (6-4 ,327, Soph., Columbus, Wis.)
* Unranked walk-on.
* Had offers from Indiana State and North Dakota.
+ Good combo block with the center, out on the LB on a 21-y ard zone lead TD run last week.
* This guy impresses me a tad more than the others.
++ pulled on a power off left tackle for a 5-yard TD, turned the corner, didn’t look like he was moving with much force, and then when he turned the corner and got into a LB, he crashed him, and sealed him inside.
RT 60 LOGAN BRUSS (6-5, 310, Soph., Kimberly, Wis.)
* 5.7 three-star recruit, ranked No. 4 in Wisconsin and the No. 21 OG in the nation.
* Spring commitment had offers from Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska.
DEFENSE
* They are a base 2-4-5 if you are in 3-WR.
* Michigan State will play 12 personnel (one RB, two TEs) about 15 to 20 percent of the time. Wisconsin could counter with a base 3-4 when Michigan State goes two TEs. Wisconsin will play some base 3-4 and showed it against Northwestern and Michigan a time or two.
* Wisconsin is multiple in their coverages, like most teams. They are comfortable playing single-safety deep and outnumbering you in the box.
While outnumbering you, they will confuse you as to who is blitzing and from where. They get you on your heels and keep pressing.
They swarm and hit and tackle.
Their best player is No. 56 the OLB, Baun. He’s the most underrated player in the Big Ten.
+ They have second-stringers in the back seven at safety who are better than most teams’ starters.
* In this way, Wisconsin once again is an example of how Michigan State needs to continue to build and process as a program: Evaluation in recruiting, and aspire to play two deep at all positions on defense.
WHAT HAS WORKED AGAINST WISCONSIN
* QB draw by Northwestern.
* Kent State’s QB on a zone read keeper for a gain of 18. Ducked inside of slowish LB Sanborn (57) made strong safety Reggie Pearson miss a tackle.
* Northwestern sprung a 30-yard gain from RB Anderson’s son on a simple inside zone. 92 (back-up DT Henningsen) for Wisconsin got too far up field while turning his back to the ball. MLB Orr fast-flow run blitzed into the gap and had Anderson flat-footed, but Anderson just side-stepped him and accelerated.
Pretty good run, came close to being stopped for no gain but popped out. Hard play for Michigan State to simulate. Nine times out of 10, Wisconsin would have stopped that gain for a meager gain.
+ Michigan completed a pass to WR Ronnie Bell on their first play for 65 yards. It was a simple all-curl pattern. Patterson didn’t see anything, scrambled to his right and Bell came open on a scramble rules backyard play. CB, I didn’t see which one, missed a tackle at the catch.
DEFENSIVE LINE: Mixed Bag, Mostly Good
* Their d-line is a curiosity. Their individuals are good when two-gapping, but not good against double-teams vs inside zones. But they are quite good at getting penetration vs outside zones. Usually if you have guys that are good at two of those things, they are good at everything.
Strange. They aren’t good vs. double teams. Write that down.
DE 97 ISAIAHH LOUDERMILK (6-7, 293, Jr., Howard, Kan.)
* 5.7 three-star recruit, ranked No. 4 in Kansas and the No. 30 strong side DE in the country.
* Took official visits to Kansas State and Oregon.
+ Plays with good athletic coil, and get get off a single-team block, or stuff it with a two-gap. HOWEVER, for a guy who is so good as a single-team two-gapper, he isn’t nearly as good vs double teams.
= Will give up a yard of movement against a good double team.
NT 91 BRYSON WILLIAMS (6-2, 300, Soph.)
* 5.5 three-star recruit ranked No. 3 in Nebraska.
* Summer commitment had offers from Air Force, Duke, Iowa, Ivy Leagues, Iowa State, Kansas State, Nebraska, Va Tech.
* No opinion.
(95 Keeanu Benton, 6-4, 315, Fr.)
* Not good at all vs double-teams, vs Michigan or Northwestern.
DE 93 GARRETT RAND (6-2, 279, Jr., Chandler, Ariz.)
* Four-star recruit ranked No. 218 in the nation, No. 5 in Arizona and No. 19 at DT.
* October commitment also took an official visit to UCLA.
* Not great vs double teams, like the others.
* Good quickness and agility when stunting.
(92 Matt Henningsen, 6-3, 286, Soph.)
* Good as a two-gapper when taking you head-on.
* Runs well. Quick coil type of athlete.
* Good agility when he stunts.
- Not great vs double-teams.
+ Sack vs Wisconsin, knifing inside, going first as the first man on a stunt. OL so worried about the loop man that the first man knifed inside and kept driving.
LINEBACKERS: Quickness on the edge, sturdy up the middle.
OLB 56 ZACH BAUN (6-3, 235, Sr., Brown Deer, Wis.)
* 5.5 three-star recruit ranked No. 3 in Wisconsin.
* Committed in January over an offer from South Dakota State.
* Change of direction, acceleration.
* OUTSTANDING Player. Impact player in the Big Ten this year.
* Was added to the Bednarik Watch list this week - which means the Bednarik people didn’t know who he was during the summer.
* Had 2.5 sacks last year but pretty much had a nondescript season in his first year as a starter.
* Missed 2017 with a foot injury.
+ Quick head-and-shoulder fakes, punches with good power, can run the hoop, then accelerate for closing speed. That pretty much covers it, and that’s why he looks like first-team All-Big Ten material.
Howard griffith on UW defense:
“They run an odd front with three defensive linemen and it makes it hard for offenses to understand where rushers are coming from. Baun has been the MVP of the defense. He can step up and make plays all over the place. He can cover players on the back end and can rush the passer and play the run. Very slippery, can bend the edge.”
(OLB 59 Tyler Johnson, 6-3, 241, Sr., Menasha, Wis., comes off the bench, three-time Academic All-Big Ten, two career starts. Reliable guy, gives Baun a couple of snaps of breathing time each game.)
ILB 54 CHRIS ORR (6-0, 224, Sr., Desoto, Texas)
* Two-star recruit ranked No. 184 in Texas by ESPN.
* Offers from Nevada and North Texas.
* he is a plus player.
* Was Big Ten Defensive Player of the week after the Northwestern game.
+ Good one-step quickness, goes from 0 to 60 quickly and closes quickly. Quick to the hole.
+ Cross key blitz for a sack last week.
* Contact player. Gets off of blocks. Plays bigger than his size.
ILB 57 JACK SANBORN (6-2, 232, Soph., Lake Zurich, Ill.)
* Four-star recruit ranked No. 4 in Illinois and the No. 11 ILB in the nation.
* Committed as a junior with offers from Iowa, Michigan State, Iowa State, Duke and others.
- Missed a tackle last week on a QB zone read keeper.
* Average speed sideline to sideline.
- Also missed a tackle when Kent State RB turned the corner for a gain of 8.
- Average speed to the flat but good heavy pass break up on a TE out route on a p-and-10 vs Northwestern, ball was slow in getting there.
(Leo Chenal, Fr., Grantsburg, Wis.)
* 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 3 in Wisconsin and No. 37 ILB in the nation.
* September commitment had an offer from South Dakota State.
* Had a sack vs Kent State last week.
OLB 41 NOAH BURKS (6-2, 240, Jr. Carmel, Ind.)
* Four-star recruit ranked No. 4 in Indiana and the No. 21 OLB in the nation.
* Summer commitment had offers from Boston College, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota.
+ Hard hit on masquerading RB Ben Mason caused a fumble early in the game near the goal line.
* This is the guy you have to try to run right at. He’s good, but he doesn’t have good size for an end man. Neither does Baun. Theoretically, you should be able to avalanche their OLBs a little bit.
(50 Izayah Green-May, 6-6, 221, Soph.)
DEFENSIVE BACKS: Untested
We haven’t seen their DBs get tested. Firstly, the QBs of Northwestern and Michigan have been awful against Wisconsin. Secondly, the Wisconsin pass rush has prevented QBs from consistently having a chance to find their marks.
At some point, some team is going to pass protect against Wisconsin and we’ll see how good these DBs are. Can Michigan State become that team? Maybe for awhile. But Michigan State will spring some leaks against Wisconsin’s pass rush.
CB 1 FAION HICKS (5-10, 185, Soph.)
* 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 96 in Florida and No. 58 athlete.
* October commitment, took an official visit to Appalachian State, Iowa State. Had offers from Cincinnati, Illinois, FAU, South Florida, UCF, mid-majors.
* He was too thin on his zone coverage on a third-down conversion against Northwestern.
SS 2 REGGIE PEARSON (5-10, 197 R-Fr., River Rouge, Mich.)
* 5.7 three-star recruit.
* Ranked No. 10 in Michigan and the No. 32 safety in the nation.
* Committed prior to his junior year in high school.
* Ended up with offers from Arkansas, Iowa State, Syracuse. Michigan State had not yet offered at the time of his commitment.
- Missed an open field tackle on the QB last week.
(SS 18 Colin Wilder, 5-10, 194, Jr., Katy, Texas)
* Aggressive, straight-line hitter.
* Transfer from Houston.
* Former three-star recruit, ranked No. 77 in Texas.
* Personal foul when he took out the QB low while the QB was carrying out a zone read fake. The ball had been handed off, but 18 was blitzing, and blitzed hard, and sawed the QB’s legs off.
+ Hard-tackling psycho type. Dan Fortener plus.
* He comes off the bench and might be better than the starter, Pearson.
FS 25 ERIC BURRELL (6-0, 195, Jr.)
* 5.7 three-star recruit ranked No. 17 in Maryland, No. 37 safety in the nation.
* October commitment also took official visits to Nebraska, Boston College, Syracuse.
+ INT vs Michigan on a pass deflected by a defensive lineman.
CB 8 DERON HARRELL (6-2, 182, Soph., Denver, Col.)
* Unranked, two-star recruit by Rivals.com. Ranked No. 5 in Colorado by ESPN.
* Wisconsin was his only offer.
- Beaten deep by a 35-yard go route last week vs Kent State, but the WR couldn’t hold on. Harrell seemed to have a miscommunication with the safety during a switch release out of a stacked WR formation. Look for Michigan State to test No. 8 with stacked receivers.
N 5 RACHAD WILDGOOSE (5-11, 197, Soph., Miami, Fla.)
* 5.7 three star recruit ranked No. 90 in Florida.
* Committed on signing day. Also took official visits to Georgia, Pitt, UCF.
* Hard-hitting, ball-hawking guy who lives up to his name. He’ll be All-Big Ten before he’s done.
+ Hard hit sniffing out a third-and-seven screen vs Northwestern, in off quarters.
SPECIAL TEAMS NOTES
* punt returner Dunn with a couple of good, get-north 10-yard punt returns in the first half against Michigan.
* 1 Avon Cruickshank (5-9, 161) returned the opening kickoff against Northwestern for 46 yards.
* Their punt team often plays for the return. They could be susceptible to a fake.
* Their kicker, Collin Larsh, is 2 of 5. His long on the year is 36 yards. He is 0-for-2 from beyond 40.
* As for MSU’s Matt Coghlin, Dantonio said field goal pressure might have had an impact on his missed field goal last week. This is obviously a big problem, all the way around. One more miss and we’re into Bill Stoyanovich yips territory.
ADD IT ALL UP
* Michigan State has the capacity to contain the run and make Coan beat them. Even if Lewerke is able to cut through the wind for 225 yards passing … even if Michigan State plays up in those areas, what makes you think Michigan State will limit its mistakes?
Dropped passes, missed field goals, pre-snap procedure penalties, the occasional strange missed tackle or gap error, add the specter of confusing, quick pressures against mediocre offensive tackles and the possibility of holding penalities killing Michigan State drives is much larger than holding penalties hurting Wisconsin.
Michigan State is capable of winning this game but I don’t anticipate the operation being mistake-free enough to carry out the task. That being said, Wisconsin isn’t as good as its numbers.
