Michigan State: A Power Running Team?

So yesterday I got all "get off my lawn you damned whippersnappers" about the lack of identity within the Michigan State offense. I recanted a better time in 2007 when MSU converted all of it's third downs by running the ball down the opposition's throat. It seems unfair to level this criticism without some research to back it up.

I tried to think of a question that would provide a strong indicator to what the "identity" of an offense is and landed on this one. Since 2007, on 3rd and 4th down with 3 or fewer yards to go, what type of play does Michigan State run and how often is it successful? If you believe in your running game, I think this is a makeable down and distance. If you are skittish about your running game, I think this you'll see a lot of passing.

The stats were constructed taking the results of plays on 3rd and 4th down with 3 or less to go. They were only taken in Big Ten games to try and remove some of the fluff in non-conference games. Results are tabulated using ESPN play-by-play. Note: Discovered cfbstats about seven seconds ago, will probably use that in the future. The stars indicate a missing game. In 2007 it was Indiana, in 2008 it was Wisconsin, in 2009 it was Minnesota. An obvious issue is small sample size. 20 or 30 of something over 8 games is not really a lot. Second issue is that we've played the meat of our schedule in 2011 so there will be some fluff going forward or at least, I hope so.



So what does this tell us?

- First, I was half right about 2007. When we ran we converted 80 percent of our third and shorts in 2007, but we didn't run as often as I remembered. We only ran 45 percent of the time on 3rd and short in 2007 we just happened to be successful nearly every time.

- Next, MSU is having it's worst 3rd down rushing conversion percentage of the Mark Dantonio era in 2011. Again, this might be because we've played the meat of our schedule and things should only get easier from here. Also, our offensive line is not bad, but not the manbeasts we were expecting by year 5. With the exception of 2009 we haven't had a year below 58 percent. This year we're at 33 percent.

- I think the sheer number of 3rd and shorts is important too. In 2007 MSU had 33 3rd and shorts, in 2010 it was 29, in 2008 it was 26 and 2011 is projecting 26, in 2009 we had 16.

In these situations, we've run more than passed in 2008, 2009 and 2010. In 2007 we passed more than ran. In 2011, we have yet to play three spread teams with weak rushing defenses and Iowa, who's down, but still Iowa. I suspect the balance will end up at the end of the Big Ten season slightly in favor of rushing over passing.

So in this particular metric is Michigan State a power running team at least in terms of play selection? For the last three years and projected over this year, yes, anywhere from marginally (2008 and 2011) to definitely (2009 and 2010). The question might instead be after 2007's third and short success on third down, should we be?

Anyway, leave comments or areas for improved study below, stats was a long time and many hoppy beverages ago

A Few Touchpoints Regarding MSU's Synergistic Excellence

Quick Note: I've been in San Diego knocking back some ice cold expense account ones at a conference for work. It's been a real challenging few days and I think my liver might not hold up. Plus, it's the bye week so there's not lots to post about.

There a few things I've wanted to address while I've been gone, consistent themes in the general MSU fan pulse. The first is William Gholston while I bet Saturday will be the day Gholston stopped being little Willie Gholston and became William Gholston, Slayer of Slow, Inattentive or Sometimes Fast Quarterbacks, we still have a way to go. Gholston's bread and butter is to bull rush everyone to death so if you have a tackle who is good at dealing with the bull rush, he will also be successful at slowing down Gholston. So buy stock now, he'll be better later, but he took advantage of some folks who were not ready for his raw speed.

Second, I will agree to a few things. 1.) Kirk Cousins struggles at key times in road games. 2.) Cousins throws some pretty boneheaded interceptions at times. 3.) He crawls inside his own head resulting in a manic crapfest. However, Cousins has still got us in second place in total Big Ten passing statistics. Since we're currently ranked tenth in the Big Ten in total rushing, we NEED Kirk Cousins to take us places this season. For us to close on our dream of playing in December in the Big 10 title game, Cousins has got to shore it up a bit, but make no mistake if we get there, he'll be a large piece of the reason why.

Third, is Baker a better running back than Bell? I guess I'd start with this, I'm not sure it's important. We have and need both. Next, I think it depends on who you ask. A pro scout would say Baker. A college coach might say Baker or Bell. Baker has the complete physical package but in a year where the O-Line is down(btw GOOD JOB O-LINE on Saturday!) I think it's natural that he struggles. What Le'Veon's gift is that he has the best vision of any back in recent MSU memory. He's patient about using his blockers. If the hole for him is supposed to be between the LG and C and it's not there, he'll look other places. He reminds me a lot of what you loved about Caulcrick, great vision and difficult to tackle. On a side note, I thought Caulcrick ran just fine at 235 his freshman year, getting him up to 255 was a mistake IMO. Baker just doesn't seem to have this vision, he runs to where his hole is supposed to be and if it isn't there doesn't tend to look for another hole. So is Baker better than Bell? Baker is more physically gifted, but I think Bell will have more success in a year like this. Bonus: I think Baker will be back next year. Bonus 2: I'd rather have this debate than why do all of our Running Back's suck like going to the dentist.

Finally, The Incredible Disappearing Act of Keshawn Martin. This one seems pretty simple to me. Keshawn Martin is a slot receiver being asked to basically play as our second most reliable receiver. Martin's natural position is the slot and more importantly he needs to be our third most reliable receiver. He is as talented as any member of our offense, but he needs to be the guy they bring in for end arounds, QB passes, you know, Keshawn Martin circus stuff. Nichol caught a couple or three passes on Saturday, but I don't think he's gonna be the guy. We need Bennie Fowler back and then on top of that, we need him to be a reliable second receiver. Part two of that is that if they could work something out with Nichol and Sims where they share the role of Y receiver, somehow. Anyway, the environment that would help Martin thrive is the one where he's the icing on the cake instead of part of the cake. Hopefully we can get someone else to be the cake in the next week or two.

Anyway, that's it for now. Be back next week for the gnashing of teeth over the Skunkbears.

Notre Dame: Five Key Things Revisited

Well here's where we pick apart the five questions Ty and I dissected on Friday afternoon. Bonus observations at the bottom as we obviously missed a few things that were key factors in the game. I'm going to try and keep the gnashing and wailing of teeth to a minimum, after all just Monday I posted about how this was still an 8-4 or 9-3 type to me.

This week's five burning questions.

1.) Will our defensive line be able to get penetration on an Offensive Line that is not comprised of high schoolers and ne'er do wells?

One sack by Pickelman to force a fumble. Nine tackles for loss. We only surrendered 275 yards of offense. That's far more consistent with 17 points(which is what the offense scored and wasn't gifted) than 31 points. The 31 points contained a Kickoff return* for a touchdown and a drive that started on the MSU 12.

How much of this is due to the defensive line? Eh, it's hard to say without film review. 4.5 of the TFLs came from D-Lineman which is pretty decent. You cannot pin this loss on the defensive line and the play of the defense is what kept us in the game at all.

*- More on this in a bit.

2.) Will Captain Kirk avenge the 2009 Kobayashi Maru at Notre Dame?

No. It wasn't even close. Two problems here. 1.) Our offensive playcalling did not put our players in a position to win. It's been a while since I've felt that way certainly not in 2010 probably not since the Cousins/Nichol merry-go-round of 2009. 2.)I don't think that Cousins trusts his line, I haven't had a chance to rewatch the game, but if I had a nickel for every time he checked down to the flat I would be rich.

3.) Who's gonna throw their beef around more BJ Cunningham or Michael Floyd?

If you would have told me prior to the game we'd hold Michael Floyd to 84 yards and no touchdowns AND BJ Cunningham would have 12 catches for 158 yards and also no touchdowns and that we lost convincingly. I would have tried hard to make a bet with you that would have involved money, humiliation and perhaps some real estate.

BJ Cunningham may not be better than Michael Floyd, but there's no way you can tell me they don't belong in the same conversation. Cunningham was getting double teamed just the same as Floyd and won the duel. He just lost the game.

4.) Brian Kelly: Can a person cause their own head to pop?

I don't know. Notre Dame came out and kicked us in the nuts. We responded by not kicking them in the nuts back. Then we changed our strategy to running trick plays that didn't work. Then we played catch-up the whole game. I'm not really sure what if anything Kelly had to be worried about.

5.) Do the Fighting Irish begin their season 0-3?

No they didn't.

Bonus Observations

- Kick return coverage this year really needs to improve. Even minus the kick return for a touchdown the Spartans are averaging 84th in NCAA in kick return yardage allowed. I made a note of this during the FAU game but wanted to see how we did against a team that was all growed up. How we did is we gave up a Kick Return for a touchdown.

- Well. Our offensive line. It sucks. With Burkland out, it's probably going to suck even more. I didn't want to ask about it in the five questions because I thought I had spent too much time nitpicking it already. Apparently, trying not to nitpick something because I'm bored of it, doesn't mean that it's not an issue. I'll be rewatching the game this week and will be paying close attention to this.

- I do not need to rewatch the game to say I was disppointed with the MSU playcalling. The Fake Field Goal was neither successful or fake. I'm not a strong X's and O's guy although, I'm working on it. A shovel pass up the middle seems a risky proposition to me. If they fan out to defend the fake you might catch them napping up the middle, but if they're honestly defending the field goal isn't the middle of the line where all the BEEF is coming through? If you want to go for it on fourth and 3 on the 3, just line up and go for it. That would have made more sense to me.

- Further, Roushar said several times he wanted the offense to be MORE unpredictable. If he wanted to be more unpredictable by running the same plays over and over to the point where the Notre Dame Defensive Coordinator said: "He cannot possibly be running again on First Down!", Roushar succeeded.

Overall Assessment

It's important to remember for me that Roushar hasn't been in this spot as a coach since 2004 and that he's entitled to a few goofs too. That said, games like this make me crazy. I don't like losing, but I despise losing when I feel like we could have won. We got punched in the mouth early and responded by trying to outsmart the opposition by taking unnecessary and long chances.

I'm looking forward to Central next week and a chance to get healthy and work on some of our weak spots. I don't suspect we'll see another Central special, but we'll be talking more this week with Mike from The Chip Report on that later this week.