File Under "Discrepant Statistics"
by KJ@theonlycolors on Sep 28, 2009 8:00 AM CDT
in Michigan State Spartans Football
Email
PrintMichigan State University leads the Big Ten in total offense:
TOTAL OFFENSE G Rush Pass Plays Yards Avg/P TD Yds/G
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. Michigan State...... 4 471 1283 264 1754 6.6 16 438.5
2. Wisconsin........... 4 791 921 274 1712 6.2 18 428.0
3. Michigan............ 4 961 728 279 1689 6.1 19 422.2
4. Purdue.............. 4 706 978 273 1684 6.2 17 421.0
5. Northwestern........ 4 522 1145 295 1667 5.7 16 416.8
6. Indiana............. 4 637 956 277 1593 5.8 11 398.2
7. Penn State.......... 4 509 990 270 1499 5.6 13 374.8
8. Ohio State.......... 4 724 744 256 1468 5.7 12 367.0
9. Iowa................ 4 574 817 274 1391 5.1 11 347.8
10.Illinois............ 3 576 467 198 1043 5.3 7 347.7
11.Minnesota........... 4 423 886 250 1309 5.2 11 327.2
You have to do a lot of things wrong to turn that table into a 1-3 record. A partial list of those things follows the jump.
- Ranking 10th in the league in pass defense (only 4 yards per game ahead of last-place Illinois).
- Producing a turnover margin of negative 3--tied for second worst in the league. (That's entirely a function of the Wisconsin game.)
- Ranking 10th in first downs allowed. ("Bend and then bend some more" defense.)
- Ranking 10th in opponents' third-down conversion percentage.
- Ranking last (in a tie) in opponents' fourth-down conversion percentage (4/5=80%).
- Ranking 11th in time of possession.
- Ranking 3rd in most penalty yards perpetrated (although that's actually been offset by ranking first in opponents' penalty yards).
- Ranking 10th in kickoff coverage
The #1 total offense ranking has been overwhelmingly a function of the passing game. MSU ranks first in the league in passing offense--a full 35 yards per game ahead of #2 Northwestern. Meanwhile, the team ranks 10th in rushing offense, ahead of only Minnesota (and that's not a function of sacks: only 3 allowed for 17 yards to date). The passing stats are padded by the 231 passing yards the two QBs racked up after MSU had already fallen behind Wisconsin by three TDs on Saturday. But even if you take, say, the 91-yard TD to Keshawn Martin out of the equation, MSU would still rank first in the league in pass offense and in the middle of the league in total offense.
(Note regarding the passing game: Let's not overlook the plays our receivers made on Saturday. Imagine what the final score of the game would have looked like if Mark Dell and B.J. Cunningham hadn't made those TD catches in tight coverage.)
(Additional sidenote: I suppose it make sense that ranking first in the Big Ten in passing offense wouldn't get you anywhere this season. After all, the key conference win thus far this season was posted by a team whose quarterback threw for 135 yards and 2 INTs.)
Looking ahead to the Michigan game, our hopes can only rest with the offense. The defense has now allowed at least 29 points and over 400 total yards to three consecutive opponents of the good-but-not-exactly-national-championship-contender quality. It's unlikely things suddenly gel the week before we play the most exotic offense we've seen yet. (The Forcier injury may help some--but it also means you have to be that much more prepared for a Denard Robinson-led run-heavy scheme.)
The good news is that Michigan's defense has only been a notch less horrid than ours has. They've actually allowed more total yardage than MSU--albeit in a more balanced manner, ranking 8th in the league in both pass defense and run defense. Offsetting the yardage numbers, they've been significantly better in the red zone defense and turnover creation departments.
If ever the term "must-win game" applied, it applies this week. A loss to our recently basement-dwelling in-state rivals wouldn't just hurt from an emotional standpoint. It would also mean that 5 wins in 7 games would be needed just to get to (maybe-)bowl-eligible status.
Let's hope our redshirt sophomore quarterback (and captain) and his ten colleagues on offense are up to the challenge.
(Prediction/hope: Mark Dantonio continues to pay lip service to the two-QB system, just to throw a mild wrinkle in Michigan's defensive game planning. But Kirk Cousins plays every series on Saturday. Please? If we lose this game, then I'm fine with rotating QBs every other quarter/series/play for the remainder of the schedule.)
22 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Correction...
A loss this week would mean they would have to win 6 of 7 to become bowl eligible. Their win against Montana State doesn’t count towards bowl eligibility because they’re an FCS school. It’s not looking so like at this point.
FCS Wins count
You just have to have 6 wins to get to a bowl game.
Iowa went in 2006 with 6 total wins and one of them was against Montana.
I'd kind of rather not go then to go to the Pizza! Pizza! Bowl.
Jesus Christ, can we please win this weekend?
I stand corrected...
Looks like you’re right :-).
“Under current regulations, in order for this to occur, a team must record at least six wins in the standard 12-game schedule, which may include one win against a Division I FCS scholarship-awarding1 opponent, and the team must not be on probation. The NCAA allows one victory per season over a Division I FCS (formerly I-AA) team to count toward an FBS team’s bowl eligibility, so long as the FCS team has supplied financial aid for football averaging out to at least 56.7 full scholarships (90% of the limit of 63 allowed to FCS schools) over the preceding two years. This prevents teams from scheduling multiple games against FCS teams in an effort to pad their win total.”
You still have to wait in line behind all the 7-win teams, right?
by KJ@theonlycolors on Sep 28, 2009 9:35 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes, 7 Wins Teams First
7 win teams must be selected ahead of 6 win teams.
I am not sure how much that will come up in the Big Ten this year as I think a lot of teams won’t get to 6 wins. Indiana, Illinois, NW and Purdue all need a lot of conference wins to get to 6.
Since 3 of those teams are on the schedule, MSU can push towards 6 while taking away others chances.
Also
Cheer for The Only Colors: Green and White!
by KJ@theonlycolors on Sep 28, 2009 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions
I think we're still paying for JLS
Specifically his seeming lack of concern for anything defense related. Our backfield is generally made up of his recruits (seniors) and the recruits from the transition year (i.e. Dantonio’s first year) who are Juniors. Those two classes should be the heart of this year’s team and both were less than stellar recruiting years for obvious reasons.
I was a little skeptical that our secondary would be all that great until I saw evidence of improvment, and to date said evidence has not been forthcoming. We’re leaving them out on an island, it’s true, because the D line can’t generate any pressure. This is what happens when you take a bad secondary and combine it with no pass rush. I am surprised at how absolutely bad they are – I wasn’t expecting a top shelf secondary but I was expecting at least somewhat competent performance. So far it’s been a total fail. Narduzzi may be the main culprit but let’s not forget Dantonio is supposed to be a defensive genius as well so I would expect him to be working on improving the performance on that side of the ball. Lets hope something works because at this point I don’t see us winning 7 games.
Assuming we lose to Michigan, Iowa, and Penn State, we have to sweep the remainder of our games to get to 6 wins. Lets say we beat Michigan (best case scenario). At this point we could only afford one loss to a non PSU/Iowa opponent. Nothing I’ve seen so far this year makes me confident that we will win all of those games.
At what point do you just give up on the pass rush...
…and just rush 3 to keep the opponent honest, since you aren’t generating any pressure anyway.
The extra player freed up could be a LB, DB, or even hybrid LB/DE who can rush, blitz, drop into coverage, run-stop, etc.
Somebody who knows defense better than me — please weigh in.
Its the Scheme, not the Players
The actual secondary does a good job of what they are tasked to do. Sometimes the plays are just horrific, you know, when you have a LB guard Floyd in man coverage.
After MSUFR of the CMU game, ND and most of the first half against Wisconsin, I have not see MSU run a play on defense when they did not have 3 LBs on the field.
EVERY DEFENSIVE PLAY MSU KEEPS 3 LINEBACKERS ON THE FIELD.
How the hell is the secondary supposed to do anything when you know the LBs are going to have a significant amount of coverage on WRs? And the LBs are just bad at coverage. There is just so much about the defense that is an unknown because of the scheme that is being used.
I'm no expert on defensive schemes
But you have clearly been charting every defensive play and if we are consistently putting LBs on WRs then that is the fault of the coaching staff, a recipe for disaster, and a clear, legitimate, non talent-based reason our secondary has looked so bad. We have to find a way to put a safety or CB on every WR when teams go 3-4 wide. If the coaches can’t, or refuse to, get the right personnel on the field then our pass D underperformance is on them.
Rushing 3 every down is not an option because we’d give up too much against the run with only 3 D linemen. On obvious third and long situations it might be an option though.
by TheCrestedHelm on Sep 28, 2009 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Wisconsin...
…had reasonable success (in the first quarter, anyway) covering MSU’s WRs with linebackers. I suspect that’s because the D-line got enough pressure that MSU didn’t have time to stretch the field vertically, and the LBs were more than adequate to cover the 8-yard dig routes.
As for the 3-man rush: I’m not necessarily advocating rushing only three. I am thinking that there could be a fourth rusher coming from an unexpected direction (either an LB or a DB), and/or a 4th linebacker (or 5th DB) in a “robber” coverage where he can read run/pass and either help out on the coverage or play the run.
Has this always been the case?
Was there the same tendency last year to play 3 LBs all the time? If not, what the H is going on? If so, why did it work out ok (at least not noticeably horribly)?
On thing to be down on the secondary, but if DBs are running out to a WR from several yards away AFTER the pass is complete, then either the scheme is terrible or the DB’s don’t know where to line up. Not good signs either way.
DBs...
…seem to be giving way too much cushion. Fear of failure overrides benefit of success. Prospect theory in action? You decide.
As of now
I am guessing the DBs are being coached to drop back as they are to help the LBs keep everything underneath.
My only guess is that the coaching staff does not trust additional DBs to be on the field. Of course, that theory goes to hell in a hand basket when they change who the starter is and play the back up a lot. So, …………..yeah.
I then am lead to belive that the coaches want to play 3 LBs on every play.
Yup
We played the same stuff last year, it just worked a lot better.
by witless chum on Sep 29, 2009 9:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Dont Give up Hope Yet
MSU 1st in Big Ten in total offense (438.5/gm), 7th in Big Ten in total defense (362.8/gm)
U of M 3rd in Big Ten in total offense (422.2/gm), 9th in Big Ten in total defense (385.8/gm)
Also of interest:
MSU Sagarin Ratings of Opponents – 141, 57, 32, and 31
U of M Sagarin Ratings of Opponents – 68, 32, 159, and 90
Also note: MSU two road games, U of M four home games
"There are no next times when you're competing for big things." - Tom Izzo
Go Spartans
The hope isn't tied to MSU vs UM, though...
… it’s tied to “my team is functional and a positive entertainment” vs “my team is a discombobulated hell OHMYGODHOWIS89BEHINDTHEDBSAGAIN!!!”
Stats wise
U of M looks about even with us. We played our one common opponent so far fairly even, especially considering it was a home game for them and an away game for us. I think we can win the game, primarily because their D appears about as bad as ours. I’m not saying we will win, but we’re capable of it.
The games I think there is no way we will win are Penn State and Iowa. We lose those and we are at 5 losses (that’s what a 1-3 start does to you). Sure, we’re capable of beating every other team on our schedule and getting to 7-5, but I just don’t have much confidence that this team is capable of running the table on all the other also-rans. So far we don’t look significantly better than most of the other teams in the Big 10. This team is flawed, especially on the defensive side of the ball, and all it takes from here on out is one bad game to put us at 6-6 and (probably) out of the bowl picture.
DP nailed it – how are teams beating us deep when we are giving them a huge cusion? I can live with the “keep everything in front of you approach” if we could only keep everything in front of us, but we apparently can’t. Normally, you pick one or the other poison – let them dink and dunk it down the field but take away the deep ball; or play them tight and force them to take shots down the field. I can live with either – those long balls are difficult throws if coverage is at all adequate so the completion percentage is normally pretty low. If you take the “let them dink and dunk us” approach, most college QBs will, if you can get any semblance of pressure, screw up a couple of throws, killing some drives on their own. The problem is teams can opt for both option 1 and 2 right now. They can dink and dunk us down the field or beat us deep.
The Problem with the Dbs.....
…..is the fact that of you watch them presnap they are straight up…..No bent knees……That puts them in a hole right away…….I dont know who the DBs coach is but that guys needs to be let go.
by BennieBladesFan on Sep 29, 2009 11:06 AM CDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Only Colors
Related FanShots on The Only Colors
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
