MSU Pass Defense

To play cover 4 as a standard defensive set does seem like borderline insanity. Its only advantage, as I understand it, is that the extra defensive back allows the safeties to play closer to the LoS so that you can more quickly get 8-9 men in the box to stop the run. But the way MSU plays it the safeties spread out wide pre-snap and back-pedal as soon as the ball is snapped, which only magnifies the gaps left between and in front of them. And besides, teams have figured out that they don’t even have to try to run at all (most pass attempts faced in the conference). The only other reason to play cover 4 is to disguise your real set (cover 2 man or zone, perhaps) until the snap. But, as we know, that’s a flavor other than vanilla and MSU don’t play dat.

My question is, though, why don’t we at least get the perceived benefit of the cover 4 – no big plays? Or defense is basically playing prevent most of the time and STILL getting burned deep. After the Purdue game we were 4th worst in the conference in pass plays given up of 15+ yards (also 4th worst in plays of 25+ yards) and I don’t think that’s going to get any better after the stats for yesterday’s game are included.

What extra DB? Are you talking about having 4 DBs deep rather than 3? If so, I don’t think it helps the safeties get to the LOS for run support. They still have to cover the deep part of the field and if they get sucked up by a play action, it’ll be an easy pitch and catch for the QB. The safeties have to stay deep and that is why they normally make tackles about 8 yards downfield.

I think we don’t get the benefit of the Cover 4 preventing big plays is for a few reasons. The LBs are not fast enough to get to the edges. They are also not split wide at the start of the play. You will normally see MSU with two LBs in the box (like the picture right after the Youtube video. Two LBs in the box, one split out to be near the slot receiver). This forces the LBs to hustle towards the side of the field. This video of the Wisconsin game at the 2 minute mark is MSU in a Cover 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luyXTVQ4YRE 43 Gordon is towards the bottom of the screen and he turns and sprints to follow the WR, then has to switch as he sees the WR head upfield and out of his zone and he has to cover the other WR. He is not fast enough to cover the first WR, and then he has to stop and change direction to try to cover the second one. He is out of position to change direction because he was sprinting, so the two players he tried to cover on this play were both open. So our LBs go out there and are not really capable of covering anyone.

Also, MSU will switch up the coverage to a Cover 2 Man, or some other man coverage where the LB is responsible for either a slot receiver, TE or player out of the backfield. A lot of the time we get burned on wheel routes because our LBs can not keep up with whomever they were supposed to be covering. Gordon was beat by a HB in the CMU game for a TD, by Michael Floyd in the ND game for a TD. Misch was beat in the PSU game for a TD. The LBs were also burned in the Purdue game for a big gain by the FB. Brandon Denson was burned on the first play of the Minnesota game for a TD. So, basically our LBs were known to have issues covering since the second game of the year.

I hate to say it, I think it took me all year to figure out, but our safeties are not that good. They are slow to move over in deep coverage and seem to never be there to help prevent a big play. I really don’t think our safeties have made any plays in pass coverage this year. I can’t recall the name of the safety who graduated last year, but it looks like he was basically the key to MSU’s defense.

Lastly, I personally think it really hurts to not play bump and run defense with the CBs. Our opponents WRs get a clean burst off the line and this lets them get deep faster and to stay on their routes. The timing with the QB is not off at all.

I believe it also hurts that Narduzzi does not change personnel based on the offense. IE, if the offense goes to a 5 WR set like Notre Dame did, MSU staying in the base 4-3 defense. I think it would be a lot better to change to at least a 4-2 Nickel package. I think that is something that hrut MSU all year.

I honestly never looked at the stats for MSU’s defense.

That is horrific. 22-3 TD-INT ratio. Wow.

In the All Big Ten Team, MSU’s starting CBs are given honorable mentions. I don’t think this is because they are bad and its a participation award. We were picked apart by the safeties and LB coverage.

…this would be a fine base defense to run in the Big 10 in 1999. It matched up pretty well with Iowa and was generally stout against the run all year. I can’t figure why that is schematically or anything, but it seems like we’re running a defense that matches up well best against the pro-style, power offenses that only three Big 10 teams run primarily anymore. And we don’t play ourselves. (OSU and PSU will still run it down your throat, but they’ll do it more from spread formations than MSU or Iowa will)

I’ve been a bit of a skeptic on the scheme being the problem, but those results speak for themselves. The only thing I still have a hard time reconciling is the difference between 2008 and 2009. I didn’t think Otis Wiley was THAT good, but it appears he was, along with the d-line getting more pressure (as far as I recall) in 2008. That and other teams had two years of tape of MSU’s defense to analyze.

I think this defensive scheme could be more effective, especially with better safeties and faster OLBs, but it seems bizarre to run a defense that’s not tailored to the majority of the opponents you’re playing, who run some version of a spread offense or at least use a lot of three wide receiver sets. I probably shouldn’t use this horrible hyperbole, but who do we know who stubbornly sticks to a scheme above else, even if he doesn’t have the players to run? It rhymes with SRod SMarrenelli.

One thing I don’t like in the post is the focus on Narduzzi. When a lot of your argument is that MSU’s basic scheme is flawed, I think you have to put that on Dantonio, especially when you’re talking about his specialty. Obviously we don’t know the division of labor on the MSU coaching staff, but the buck stops with Dantonio.

I generally don’t like the guy who calls the Huge Show and say the coaches are stupid. I really don’t get the people who think Don Treadwell is doing a bad job calling plays. But when you return seven starters from a pretty effective defense, along with a several others who got major playing time, you’d figure you’re going to have a pretty effective defense again. You might even write an offseason fan post talking about how the secondary should be a strength and how much better off we are than the bad old days. (I stand by that part, MSU’s DBs can’t have been worse than they were in the JLS-era) When that doesn’t happen, it seems reasonable to say what the hell is going on?

I think there’s general agreement that the cover 4 makes you more likely to give up the short pass (under 15 yards) but is SUPPOSED to shut down the big play. The first part definitely held true. MSU faced more pass attempts (437 or 36+/gm) than any other team in the Big Ten and more than any other team in the country except Oklahoma State. On these plays they have given up a fairly ordinary 7.1 yards per attempt. But with the number of passes being thrown, this resulted in 3,019 yards given up, one of the worst figures in the country (116th out of 120 teams). So it’s safe to say that teams figured out that we were going to give up the short pass and, dammit, nothing was going to change our minds.

So did we shut down the big play? I think you can see where this is going. . . In 2009, MSU gave up 27 pass plays of 25 yards or more, again one of the worst figures in the country. Adding in passes of 15-25 yards you get 90 “big” plays given up (106th in the country) or 7.5/gm. Yow. That’s epic fail in anyone’s book, I think.

So although our run defense gave the appearance of being OK, the real story is that no one needed to run to beat us. Although the quality of our safety play was certainly questionable, I think you have to point at least one finger at the coaching staff here. If no adjustments are made all season after a glaring problem surfaces at least as early as week 3, then MSU is guilty of obstinacy in the face of reason, and not an admirable consistency.

I remember when I played football and we called the cover 4 defense “mini prevent” because you were basically giving up quick outs, short drags, wheel routes, swing passes, etc in exchange for not getting beat for more than 10 yards per play. I’m sure teams like CMU still laughs when they think a defense like that can stop an offense that is actually oriented on the short passing game. Teams like USC and Fla can run a defense like a cover 4 because they have “all world” type OLBs who can actually cover guys out of the backfield, can actually attempt to cover some slot receivers, and can make plays on the edge. Our OLBs are terrible in pass coverage, and the results this year showed that.

What is a bit more concerning was the fact that we STILL gave up the big play in spite of playing a defense specifically designed to stop it. There are a few reasons for this, in an “order” of sorts:

1. Our DL play was generally weak on getting any kind of pressure with 4 guys. This resulted in QBs having all day to throw, unless…

2. We blitz one or two LBs most of the time to get some kind of pressure. Unfortunately, with a cover 4 or DBs “bailing out” to start the play this can…

3. Leave the middle of the field wide open from the D line to 15+ yards down field where the DBs are. This would normally not be too big of an issue (besides the constant 10 yard gains), except….

4. Our DBs take TERRIBLE angles on tackles and on thrown balls. Watching game footage shows missed tackles in the secondary, DBs allowing TEs and WRs to run right in front of them for catches, etc

Basically, a breakdown on every level. We just needed a different scheme and never got it. This is just coaching the talent you are given, and nothing more. The scheme needs to work with the players you are given, and our coaching staff refused to admit this for the entire season

Is that this is the pinacle of MSU football. The team is not going to get better. If everyone else knows you are going to play a majority of your defense as a Cover 4, then they are going to game plan accordingly.

Sure the defensive line did not get much pressure, but with the QB getting the ball out in under two seconds, its hard to generate pressure. The games that kill me are Minnesota and Purdue. Those are bad ball clubs. Minnesota scored zero points twice this year. They scored 42 against MSU. That game was so much of an anomaly for their offense that you would think MSU had the defensive talent of a bad FCS team.

Even if MSU has big upgrades in talent, this defensive scheme is always going to cost the team wins. I am thinking this is why NW won in 2007. The spread offense was basically designed to kill this defense. Next year Michigan is going to have a Sophomore QB, is everyone looking forward to them putting 40+ points on the board?

This defense is 100% dependant on the other team making big mistakes. Dropped passes, bad passes, blown blocking assignments. Even a mediocre FBS team is not going to be that consistently bad for an entire game.

This is MSU football with Narduzzi. The team will probably range between 6 and 9 wins but never get better.

like state ever has a good pass defense. They have gotten better with the rush but all the years ive been watchin, they struggle with the pass

Does anyone know when Pat moved to the press box?

At the start of the year he was on the field. Generally if the coach is moved from the field to the press box it is to improve the defense. IE he has a better view of what the offense is doing and can adjust accordingly.

So far as I know, he was only in the press box for the PSU game.