ISSUE ONE! Will MSU's Running Game Improve in 2010?
by LVS on Aug 31, 2010 12:06 AM CDT
in Michigan State Spartans Football
Email
Print
WRONG!! You all had Special K with ba-na-na!
In an effort to cloak the inadequacy of our season previewing thus far, over the next four days, we're going to look at the four most critical questions facing the Michigan State football team in 2010. First up: whether MSU will be improve its rushing productivity.
One of the more remarkable aspects of MSU's 2009 football season was the seemingly complete reversal in offensive styles. The 2008 team usually employed a positively paleolithic approach, wherein the object was to give the ball to Javon Ringer as often as possible and have Brian Hoyer throw the ball only as a change of pace. Conversely, the 2009 offense, particularly later in the season, was built on an impressive passing game and seemed to run only as an afterthought.
. . . or so the storyline went. By most measures, amazingly, MSU was a better rushing team in 2009 than in 2008:
|
|
ATT |
YDS |
YPC |
YPG |
TDs |
|
2008 |
511 |
1692 |
3.3 |
130.2 |
24 |
|
2009 |
419 |
1779 |
4.2 |
136.8 |
16 |
Of course, much of the 2008 narrative was established early in the season, when Ringer was scoring touchdowns by the bunches and racked up 4 games with at least 190 yards. By the time Ringer started faltering down the stretch--surely a victim of his obscene workload--MSU's identity as a rushing team was firmly established.
In 2009, however, Your Spartans featured a host of young running backs, the second-most inexperienced offensive line in the Big Ten, and a potentially-outstanding passing attack. The pieces seemingly weren't in place for substantial productivity on the ground, but three things occurred. First, the passing game was perhaps even better than advertised, and as defenses focused in on stopping the pass, the running game received more opportunities to shine. Second, the offensive line jelled fairly well, becoming a well-above average pass-blocking unit, and, at the very least, an adequate run-blocking unit. Third, the running backs grew up in a hurry. Larry Caper was solid all season long, Glenn Winston showed promise before blowing out his knee, Edwin Baker did excellent work after his redshirt was burned, and, of course, Ashton Leggett had one absolutely outstanding game against Western Michigan.
Fortunately, it appears that some of the pieces are in place for MSU's ground game to be more efficient and more productive in 2010.
First, while Leggett and Winston are gone (thankfully), Baker and Caper return and figure to be even better in their second years. Caper was listed as the starter on the pre-practice depth chart, but I'd imagine that he and Baker will end up splitting time fairly evenly. They'll be joined by Le'Veon Bell, "who has the steel and speed of a Panzer tank" and has been one of the very pleasant surprises in the fall camp. Bell is listed at 6'2", 230, so the temptation is strong to pigeonhole him as a goal line bruiser. (Although, after last year's red zone strugglefest, a Jehuu Caulcrick-type bowling ball would be greatly appreciated.) But, he's apparently relatively athletic, and could figure prominently into the discussion this year. (I've never seen him play in person. Here's hoping the optimistic reports are accurate.)
Second, the passing game should be even better this season. If MSU can consistently air it out--and there's no reason to believe that we won't be able to--opposing teams obviously won't be able to stack the box with regularity, and our runners should have regular opportunities to get into the secondary.
Ah, but here's the catch: none of it will matter if the offensive line isn't creating holes for the running backs. The right side of the line, obviously, will be all-new. The WMU depth chart hasn't been released yet, but it seems probable that Chris McDonald will get the start at right guard; strong play from him is particularly important if our backs are going to have any success on the interior running plays of which Dantonio is so fond. But so much of offensive line play is about cohesion and not individual effort, and we won't truly have a sense of this line's chemistry until the second or (more likely) third week of the season.
Also, I already mentioned Dantonio's fondness for boring, predictable runs up the middle. We were all enormously frustrated by the lack of variety in the running game last year, and particularly in short-yardage situations. Without some variation, the even solid blocking and running won't accomplish all that much.
Last year's rushing total, 1779, was good for sixth in the conference--but not exactly sixth with a bullet, as we trailed the 5th place team (Penn State) by 428 yards. This season, the focus and playcalling emphasis will be on our talented quarterback and wide receivers, so we're not going to come close to the league leaders in rushing. However, this is the internet, where we tend to judge the success or failure of things based on highly arbitrary criteria. 2000 yards rushing is a nice round number which, coincidentally, would represent a substantial-yet-realistic ground-game improvement over last year's effort.
So, what say you? Do we get to 2000?
10 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
One vote for yea, one vote for JACK GERMOND!! as the goalline back.
by BongoFury on Aug 31, 2010 12:36 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
my vote.
was yea, in a “why the hell not?” sort of way.
I voted No.
For the raw total. If anything I think we throw the ball even more this year. I do think we should be able to run the ball more efficiently though.
Thank you for pointing out how overrated our 2008 rushing attack was.
I’m fine with us throwing the ball all over the place, it makes sense given the talent we have at QB, WR and TE.
What I think we really need from the running game isn’t to rack up big totals (although I wouldn’t complain if we did), but to be able to convert those short yardage and goal line situations that we were so god awful at last year. If we can do that, and get even a slight bump in the YPC area so that the running game is a little more efficient this offense could be scary good.
2,000 Yards
Maybe it’s a cliche, but I think we’ll make it if only because of a need to control the clock more. I’m sure there were points in each of the close losses where the ability to burn time with the running game might have changed the result.
by Christopher Cobb on Aug 31, 2010 9:00 AM CDT reply actions
2009 + 17 YPG = 2000
That’s the formula for reaching 2,000 rushing yards as a team: adding an extra 17 rushing yards per game to the 2009 total. I don’t think that’s asking for a whole lot. Assuming we convert a higher percentage of our short yardage third downs to keep drives alive, that should provide ample opportunities to get the extra 17 yards per game.
Numbers Perspective
Last year, average rushing YPG was 136. So we’re talking about an additional 12%.
Not saying yes or no, just putting it into perspective.
by Spartan-Football on Aug 31, 2010 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions
Running the Football Game Theory
Hold up, you mean we’re already over Jerseygate 2010 and we have to talk about football now?! (-1 point for overused {insert-issue-here + gate} cliche)
The thing about having an All-Universe player or essentially All-Universe unit at either running back or wide receiver is that every other team in the conference knows it.
From Smart Football:
Imagine you are fortunate enough to have a future All-American guy at RB. He runs for a ton of yards as a junior, and now, a year later, you’re ready to ride him to a state title. But everyone else knows about this guy now. They begin stacking the line. You’ve got this All-American at running back and you’re averaging less per carry than you did three years earlier when you had three Academic All-Americans—and no football All-Americans—splitting time at RB. What’s going on? What do you do?
You pass of course. You run bootlegs, you fake it to him, and you throw the ball. But how odd you say. You have the best running back you’ve had in 15 years, and you wind up running less? The answer is simply that everyone else knows you have this stud RB, so they commit so much effort and defensive scheme and structure to push your expected yards per rushing play down to a manageable number, your passing opportunities increase, even if you have less talent there than years past.
Case in point: 2008 with Javon Ringer. Everyone knew the drill going into the season – we were going to hand it off to Ringer as much as was reasonably possible, and maybe a smidge more. So what happens? Defensive coordinators eventually get wise, and the plug up the middle. That’s when, counterintuitively to the team’s strength, MSU was able to skew more towards the pass since defenses were overcompensating for the run.
What does that mean for this year? Expect to see us air it out for the first couple of games. Then, when defenses start to overcompensate to stop the passing attack, we’ll (hopefully) switch over emphasize the run.
Obviously I have no idea if this will actually pan out, but in terms of theoretical postulations, this is what I’m going with.
by Spartan-Football on Aug 31, 2010 11:21 AM CDT reply actions
Are we including the bowl game in these numbers?
2000/12 = 166.7 YPG
2000/13 = 153.8 UPG
We should knock out a good chunk of that 2000 yards in the games against WMU and Northern Colorado. Let’s say we go for 400 combined in those 2 games- that leaves 10 games to get 1600 (11 if you count a bowl).
160YPG w/o a bowl
146.5 w/ a bowl
2000 is definitely doable
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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.
