Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Russell Westbrook and Kevin Durant's Post-Game 5 Outfits

Biggies and Slappies: Florida Atlantic

In case you missed last week's post, herein I rather arbitrarily distribute two sets of awards: Biggies (named for Biggie Munn) to each week's best players/coaches/what-have-you, and Slappies (named after, well, you know) to the week's sub-par performers.  And, onward:

BIGGIES

Biggie_icon_medium  Edwin BakerLe'Veon Bell took the top billing last week, but this week we'll give it to Baker, who had a tremendous afternoon running the football.  Baker ran the ball 15 times for 183 yards, including an 80 yard touchdown run.  That's 12.3 yards per carry--and even if you discount the 80 yarder as an outlier, he still averaged 7.4 yards on his other carries.  He showed quickness, top end speed, the ability to change direction--just about everything you could want.  An outstanding performance.

Biggie_icon_medium Dan Conroy3 for 3 on field goals; all of the kicks were longer than 40 yards, and each was absolutely pure.  How many kickers hit 50-yarders this early in their career?  (And that kick would have been good from at least 55, perhaps more.)  We were all concerned about the kicking game this season; Conroy is looking better than any of us could have hoped.

Biggie_icon_medium Kevin Muma and the kickoff coverage team.  While we're on the subject of kickers: Muma looked very good kicking off, and the kickoff coverage team swarmed FAU's returners.  FAU's best starting position following an MSU kickoff was the 26, and the average starting position was only the 23.  Kicking in a dome no doubt helped Muma's (and Conroy's, for that matter) confidence and performance, but overall, we've seen very good things from the kicking game thus far.

Biggie_icon_medium  The offensive line.  Through two games, MSU has 522 yards rushing; that's nearly 30% of last season's entire total.  Baker and Bell get the headlines, but the offensive line deserves much of the credit: they've opened huge holes for our backs.  I thought J'Michael Deane had a particularly strong game game run blocking -- his pull over to the left side of the line on Baker's long TD run was a thing of beauty.  Of course, Deane also was burned on FAU's only sack on the day, and some will question the unit's pass protection.  Personally, I thought they were fine.  Bonus points for finishing the game with no false starts or holding penalties.

Biggie_icon_medium  Keshawn Martin.  A week after a disappointing performance, Keshawn gets back on the right side of the ledger.  His 47-yard punt return in the first quarter set up MSU's first touchdown, and while I still get antsy about the possibility of fumbles, to his credit, Martin fielded everything cleanly.  A 42-yard catch-and-run completed a nice day for Keshawn.

Biggie_icon_medium Colin NeelyFor my money, MSU's best defensive player on the day.  Neely had 5 tackles--three of which were for losses, including a sack--and one official quarterback hurry.  (IMO, he had a few others that the official scorer didn't credit.)  A solid effort, and one he'll need to reprise this Saturday.

Biggie_icon_medium Team Discipline.  State had 4 penalties for 43 yards, but those penalties were a block in the back, and three pass interference calls.  Of course, those are big penalties and need to be worked on, but the key for me was that there were no indiscipline penalties: no offside calls on offense or defense, no delay of game penalties, no substitution infractions, or anything else of the like.  Contrast that to last week's haul of three false starts, two defensive offsides, and a delay of game; there was a big improvement here.  A one-week Slappy-to-Biggie rebound.

More, after the jump.

Star-divide

MORE BIGGIE THAN SLAPPY

Biggie_icon_medium The safeties.  Hyde and Robinson missed a few tackles, and that prevents them from achieving full Biggie status.  But the two of them also broke up 4 passes (2 each) and did a fairly good job of preventing big passing plays from occurring.  (FAU's longest play was an underneath route gone bad, and not really the safeties' fault.)  They'll be tested in a big way by ND's passing offense, but after two games I'm confident that we're better at this position than we were last year.

Biggie_icon_medium Le'Veon Bell.  Ran really well for the second consecutive week, but man, did he ever look like a freshman on his fumble.

 

MORE SLAPPY THAN BIGGIE

Slappy_icon_medium Pat Narduzzi. I'll refrain from a full shotgunning because of the extenuating circumstances here: FAU was an expected win game, and one which came a week before a rivalry matchup against a good offense.  Consequently, the decision to run a very base, vanilla defense with few blitz calls and virtually no exotic packages was almost certainly the correct decision, and one which perhaps led to a poorer defensive performance than would otherwise have been the case.  Nonetheless, it's impossible to overlook the fundamental issues with this defense, and the fact that they don't seem to be getting better.  Secondary breakdowns were numerous.  FAU's tight ends were barely covered at all, and on the Owls' final drive, MSU nobody was within 10 yards of Lester Jean, who turned a seven yard cross into a 41 yard gain.  The tackling was poor, as Dantonio noted: "We did not tackle as well this week on the perimeter. I saw some missed tackles. I saw some big hits and they ran through those."  Most distressingly, two of the three pass interference penalties were direct results of atrocious defensive form, where our defenders were out-of-position or simply panicked as the ball approached.  As SpartanDan wrote:

The secondary was making basic silly mistakes (like switching off the main receiver when you’re in man defense instead of zone, or grabbing the receiver when you’ve already got position) and letting FAU walk up and down the field with short passes.

Anyway, I could go on and on . . . I hope things will be better next week, but I've been hoping that for more than two seasons now.

SLAPPIES

Slappy_icon_medium Kirk Cousins.  I really don't enjoy writing this; I thought that many were overly critical of Cousins' performance in the first game.  But there's little doubt that he was very, very mediocre this Saturday.  Kirk really wasn't accurate on Saturday -- his 9-17 performance can't be chalked up to drops, at least -- and the interception he threw into the endzone was a killer.  I think that Cousins is going to be fine, but the improvement will need to come quickly if we're to win this Saturday.

Slappy_icon_medium The linebacking corps.  Jones, Gordon, and Norman combined for 32 tackles, and that's obviously very impressive on paper, but a big reason why they had so many opportunities to tackle was because they blew their coverage assignments in the first place.  FAU's tight ends, especially Rob Housler, got open time and again.  Our linebackers hardly blitzed at all on Saturday, so there's very little excuse for that lack of coverage.  As Eric Gordon said:

I also think we are going to have to play a little better in space and we have to get off the field on third downs, we had plenty of opportunities. We had a few third and longs and we gave up big plays. Next week we can't give up them plays.

Yes, indeed.  Because if you think FAU's tight ends are good, just wait for Kyle Rudolph.

Slappy_icon_medium Howard Schnellenberger.  Yes, his ridiculous decision to kick the field goal with time winding down in the fourth quarter actually helped MSU.  I don't care.  He gets Slappied for one of the most bizarre and indefensible coaching decisions I've seen in a long time.  Schnellenberger apologized yesterday--and quite rightly--but FAU fans (do they exist?) should be livid about the way that game ended.

As always, please divvy out your own awards in the comments.

Comment 44 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Interesting Comment about Narduzzi

I don’t know if he is that smart, however, the blitzing is way down. Regarding ND, their defense looked slow and out of position. Should be a big day for our three headed monster. The wolverwhines can cover their “May the Forcier be with you” Heisman signs with Shoeless (I know it’s shoelace). Whatever happened to Sam McGuffie? I think he ran the ball inside too often.

by MSU1978 on Sep 13, 2010 11:16 AM CDT reply actions  

I know ...

I was making a point that Shoe Lace might have the same fate.

by MSU1978 on Sep 13, 2010 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions  

Ok, sorry.

Must…recalibrate…irony…sensors.

by CPT Hoolie on Sep 13, 2010 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions  

The word you are looking for is:
while I still get ancy about the possibility of fumbles

Antsy.

by MSULaxer27 on Sep 13, 2010 11:35 AM CDT reply actions  

Hmmph.

Honestly thought that was an acceptable spelling. Dictionary.com says no, so I stand corrected.

by LVS on Sep 13, 2010 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions  

You are using the wrong dictionary

Try this one. And then please reassure us you weren’t implying the 2nd meaning listed.

Fight for The Only Colors: Green and White!

by KJ@theonlycolors on Sep 13, 2010 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions  

I initially read it as "fancy"....

….although reading it as “nancy” is much funnier. “I still get nancy about the possibility of fumbles.” Much better.

by CPT Hoolie on Sep 13, 2010 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions  

The Defense

I have been reading the posts and comments on here regarding the defense with a lot of interest. I keep going back and forth on my opinion.

I guess at this point I would say it is still too early to know anything about this unit. There have been flashes of potential. The Dline play seems to be better than last year. Guys in the secondary have made a few plays on the ball. The run defense has been solid, although not exactly stifling.

On the flip side they have allowed a ton of easy completions. They’ve allowed some mediocre teams to move the ball at will at times. And, most frustratingly they have done it in the same way that teams did a year ago. This makes it appear that the defense hasn’t improved or changed from a year ago, which is frustrating. I’d point out that one of the interference calls was on Gardiner, who has seen very little time on the field.

But to be honest, watching MSU’s D (and offense for that matter), has reminded me of watching NFL preseason. We have shown nothing new in terms of schemes. And frankly, I don’t think the play has been all that inspired. Case in point, the linebacking play, which based on their track record should be really good, has been very average.

So yea, it’s frustrating to see a lot of the same mistakes, but I think the jury is still far from any verdict on this unit.

by trivialstuff16 on Sep 13, 2010 12:05 PM CDT reply actions   1 recs

Yep.

That’s why I equivocated on Narduzzi a bit.

by LVS on Sep 13, 2010 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

Talent Gap and Vanilla Scheme

It seems like we often hear about the fact that our defense is not necessarily as talented as some of the more dominant programs in our conference (like Wisc, or Iowa), and the whole “cupboard was bare” argument. I am also increasingly hearing this argument shift over to this new “we are holding things back” excuse for such mediocre play. The two fundamental things about this:

- Are our players not better than the likes of WMU and FAU, even if they are inferior to Wisc or Iowa? At what point do you have to say that we should just be that much more talented than middle of the pack teams from mid major conferences? Do we really not have a sizable talent advantage over a team like FAU at this point, and if we don’t, isn’t that really concerning?

- Even running a “vanilla scheme”, shouldn’t we be better at things like getting pressure, stopping the run and covering the short passing game? If we can’t even be successful at these kind of “vanilla schemes”, what makes anyone confident that we are going to be better at something that is MORE complex?

"It's a trap!"

by AdmiralAkbar on Sep 13, 2010 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

Unacceptable

Even if the cupboard is completely bare, MSU’s defense should be completely manhandling the the #3 team in the MAC West (#6 overall) — not to mention the 4th best team in the Sun Belt Conference. After 3 years of Dantonio’s recruiting classes, the defense should be without question more talented than those aforementioned foes. So based on the talent in the system, the absense of any real defensive dominance over these middling opponents would seem to point a finger at the coaching.

I’ve been saying since early last season that Pat Narduzzi and his vanilla schemes have to go. Relying on the “players need to make big plays” tactic rather than making any schematic adjustments just seems downright lazy. However, if this defense actually turns out to be fairly respectable this year, I’ll be more than happy to eat my fair share of humble pie. But something tells me we’re in for more performances of the “we knew exactly what they were going to do” variety.

Man looks in the abyss, there's nothing staring back at him. At that moment, man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss. -- Lou Mannheim, Wall Street

by ChiSpartan on Sep 13, 2010 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

Seriously?

Middle-of-the-pack mid-majors? Our defense should be more than talented enough not to have multiple horrid breakdowns against them at all times. If TCU or Boise State burns us repeatedly, “we don’t have an elite defense” is a valid excuse. When it’s FAU … no.

by SpartanDan on Sep 13, 2010 7:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

Are we talking about the same thing? I don't think we are.

I am talking about sheer overall talent level.

Not playing better, not “dominating”, not “talented enough to not have multiple horrid breakdowns”. Just talent level. In other words, some 5-stars, multiple 4-stars, remainder 3-stars. Not 3-stars as your top talent level.

We still have players left over from the…slappy….era. The first Dantonio recruits were the recruiting Class of 08, they are RS sophomores or juniors now, right?

by CPT Hoolie on Sep 13, 2010 9:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

This is crazy

You just described Ohio State’s defense personnel. I don’t think we need to expect OSU-level recruiting to hope for a decent D. If our D is going to depend on top-10 level recruiting year in and out, then it’s time for everyone to pack bags, bottled water, canned soup and head to the fetal-position-cry-bunker.

by DP99 on Sep 14, 2010 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions  

The 2010 recruiting class was exactly that!

5-star: William Gholston
4-star: Max Bullough, Mylan Hicks, Isaiah Lewis
3-star: Marcus Rush, Kurtis Drummond, Justin Wilson, Taylor Calero.

The only 2-star in the class was JUCO transfer Anthony Rashad White; JUCOs are always 2-star, I think. who has seen a bunch of playing time this year.

by CPT Hoolie on Sep 14, 2010 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions  

Of those three things you mention...

“…getting pressure, stopping the run and covering the short passing game…” I think the only one of those three MSU has done poorly at is covering the short passing game.

Pressure could be better, but it’s not too far off.

Run defense has been excellent — MSU is currently at 1.97 yards per attempt, 8th nationally.

by CPT Hoolie on Sep 13, 2010 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions  

I find myself

Agreeing more with CPT Hoolie in this thread. Yes, the defense has been underwhelming against mediocre competition. As I said, I share that concern, but not to the point that I am ready to conclude that the defense hasn’t improved.

Are we more talented than mid-majors? Yes. Are we so much more talented that we should expect to just dominate them at every turn. I don’t think so. College football is littered with examples of how slim the talent gap is between teams, regardless of if you are going from major conference to a mid major. There are plenty of major conference teams that would loved to have looked mediocre and to still be 2-0.

I guess I’m just taking a more optimistic approach right now. You could very well end up being proven right. I just don’t think it’s possible to make a determination at this point.

by trivialstuff16 on Sep 13, 2010 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think we'll see Mylan Hicks at some point this year.

He has, as a true frosh, passed at least 2 guys with “seniority” on the depth chart (Mitchell White and Chris D. Rucker).

by CPT Hoolie on Sep 13, 2010 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions  

And, as if to prove me wrong, he's off the ND depth chart.

Injury? Or did they make up their mind to redshirt him already?

by CPT Hoolie on Sep 14, 2010 10:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

cousins.

expect brian hoyer 2008 out of cousins this year. i think he might need to get in a rhythm in order to perform like he did last year, and with the way we’re running the ball i don’t see that happening. i think my hope that his numbers would continue into this season does not look particularly likely.

by robb. on Sep 13, 2010 12:12 PM CDT reply actions  

Best Penalty Call. Ever.

Thankfully, it wasn’t us, but the “Offsides…the Entire Defensive Line” narration reminded me of Unnecessary Roughness or The Replacements or any football comedy movie…you know, when inevitably the team decides it has to get even with the other team.

Kudos to Cousins for drawing them offsides like that and gaining 5 yeards with just his call.

Izzo for President!

by tomac on Sep 13, 2010 12:16 PM CDT reply actions  

I don't know that the field goal was that indefensible a decision.

FAU was down by 16 points with about 3 minutes left. The “two-score strategy” would have required a touchdown, a 2-point conversion, a successful onside kick (or a 3-and-out), another touchdown and two-point conversion. And that’s just to tie. [The other option was a “three-score strategy”, requiring two touchdowns with extra point and a game-winning field goal.]

Breaking down the two-score strategy — 2-point conversions are, arguably, somewhere between a 40% and 55% success rate. So had they failed the first 2-point conversion — a coin flip — they would have been at 30-20, still needing a touchdown and a field goal to tie (or a touchdown, two-point conversion, and field goal to win in regulation), forcing reversion to the three-score strategy.

[The decision matrix has three outcomes as “three-score” and one as “two-score”. I am deliberately not calculating expected value, simply because I am feeling lazy and don’t have time today.]

If FAU was already down by 10 in that situation, then the argument for going for the touchdown first is much stronger.

Now, what I do think was indefensible was not going for the onside kick immediately after making the field goal. Once Schnelly had settled on the three score strategy — field goal and two touchdouns were required — he needed to get the ball back as soon as possible, as it would take not one, but two, drives totaling less than three minutes.

by CPT Hoolie on Sep 13, 2010 1:49 PM CDT reply actions  

I'll disagree there

I think if you fill reasonable estimates of the sequence of events needed, you’ll end up with a small, but nonzero, chance of tying the game in regulation if they go for it on 4th down. (Roughly: 45% x 10% x 25-50% x 45% = 0.5%-1.0%).

By kicking the field goal, you now introducing needing to successfully convert two onside kicks, which, by itself, is going to have a probability of only about 1% (10% x 10%). Adding in the chances of scoring two touchdowns, and you’re down to a number practically undistinguishable from zero.

Fight for The Only Colors: Green and White!

by KJ@theonlycolors on Sep 13, 2010 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions  

Oops

Forgot the first 2-point conversion in my chain. Add another 45% in there and you’re down to 0.23%-0.45%. But the overall points stands, I think. Using the same parameters, the odds of getting 2 onside kicks and scoring 2 TDs after the FG conversion are 0.06% (going with lower bound of 25% for odds of scoring TD when you have to do it twice in 3 minutes).

Fight for The Only Colors: Green and White!

by KJ@theonlycolors on Sep 13, 2010 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions  

Game theory and probability woo!

There is also the possibility, though, of an onside kick failing but the defense recovering the ball after a three-and-out.

Were you able to find onside kick success rates for the NCAA? I could only find NFL rates, at advancednflstats.com. There it puts the success rate higher — minimum 20% — but the rate is greatly effected by whether the other team is expecting it or not.

by CPT Hoolie on Sep 13, 2010 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yeah, 10% stuck in my head, but that may be a little too low

Even if you use 20%, though, you’re back up to 0.5%-1.0% for the go-for-it plan and only up to 0.25% for the kick-the-FG plan.

The 3-and-out scenario only works if you go for the TD on 4th down. If you need 2 scores, there’s no way you have time to make all that happen if you let the offense run 3 plays and a punt—which would involve at least a minute running off the clock, even if FAU had all 3 TOs left.

Fight for The Only Colors: Green and White!

by KJ@theonlycolors on Sep 13, 2010 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions  

Indefensible- period.

Schnelly gave up on the game, his team, and his kids. I would be PISSED if I were an FAU player and my coach sold us short like that.
No football coach would reasonable expect to get 3 possessions with less than 3 minutes. I can guarantee you that all that statistical stuff was never a blip in Schnelly’s mind. By not going for the TD, he threw in the towel.

by Spartan D on Sep 13, 2010 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

did anyone else notice...

…that schnellenberger didn’t wear a headset during the game? it seems like he’s functioning as a paterno at FAU.

by robb. on Sep 13, 2010 2:16 PM CDT reply actions  

I don't have much to add

I don’t think they deserved a slappy, but it was good to see T. Robinson and Hyde breaking up some passes. Seems like that never happened last year.

by Stones1981 on Sep 13, 2010 3:43 PM CDT reply actions  

Re: Defense

I really don’t think it’s as much a talent gap as it is a defense effectiveness gap.

Ever since Coach D has arrived we’ve seemed to have a bend but don’t break mentality. The coverage we run seems to allow and anticipate a lot of the routes underneath will be open. Hence, a higher completion rate and routes 5-8 yard routes should be, and are, open all day. I don’t think we’ve ever defended those well. In baseball terms, I guess it’s a “give up a single but not a home run” thing.

Personally I think the bend don’t break notion is a pretty horrible defensive philosophy.

by msuduster on Sep 13, 2010 5:50 PM CDT reply actions  

i disagree.

i think our defensive philosophy forces a team to put together a large number of plays in order to sustain a drive and score points. if we played a higher risk defense to prevent shorter plays, we would risk allowing more scores.

bend don’t break naturally works because as the drive approaches the end zone, the field naturally compresses. this eats up the space that we give up underneath, making it difficult to score a touchdown, if the drive even lasts that long. though teams do put together scoring drives on us, i don’t expect a lot of “3 plays, 75 yards” drives like we’ve scored on in the first two games.

it is not perfect, however. longer drives require more sustained energy by the defense, which begins to get difficult. that is where making plays enters the equation. and there are probably more holes schematically depending upon the o-formation and defensive personnel. but that takes a lot more analysis than “3rd down D is terrible” or “pass rush is atrocious.” after watching julian peterson get beat on a RB wheel route, i feel comfortable that this is not a failure of stupidity in the narduzzi scheme, however.

defense v. offense is a shell game. my biggest concern is that narduzzi is making the wrong assumptions or has very high expectations of the players when approaching it.

by robb. on Sep 13, 2010 7:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

Forcing a team to put together a lot of 5-10 yard plays ...

… accomplishes absolutely nothing when we also make it absolutely trivial for them to do so. When FAU tried slow-developing deep routes, our corners made plays or the pass rush got there. On short routes, everything was open much of the day.

by SpartanDan on Sep 13, 2010 7:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

That sounded more pessimistic than I meant

But this “give up the short stuff, don’t get beat deep” philosophy is more or less a mini-prevent. And we all know how well the prevent works.

by SpartanDan on Sep 13, 2010 7:40 PM CDT up reply actions  

I agree to an extent

Most college offenses are somewhat mistake prone and will self destruct if you give them enough time to do so. Given that, a bend but don’t break philosophy is OK – they may get a few first downs but eventually they’ll get called for a hold, or someone will make a play, and then you force them into a low percentage 3rd and long situation and get off the field.

Unfortunately that only works for us to an extent, and the problem isn’t so much that we are letting them complete short passes as that we are allowing lots of yards after the catch. This wasn’t so much of a problem against WMU, but was, by all accounts, a problem against FAU. It’s OK to allow the short underneath completion on third and long, as long as someone is there to wrap up the receiver and minimize positive gains. That seems to be the aspect we’re missing – we’re covering OK deep and give up the short stuff, but you still need someone close enough to the underneath receiver that he can’t turn a 6 yard catch into a 10-20 yar catch and run. Because that 6 yard route is a very high percentage throw, and if teams can get 10 to 15 yards a pop out of it your chance of getting them to self destruct go way down.

by TheCrestedHelm on Sep 14, 2010 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions  

Biggest issue with line backing, and to a smaller extent the DBs

in coverage they’re letting receivers catch the ball AND turn up field. Instead of breaking on the ball when it’s thrown, they’re chopping in place to make sure they don’t get juked. The result of this is that opposing receivers are getting momentum and running over the defensive players, sometimes just enough for first downs.

What they should be doing is running down field towards players as they makes catches and using their own momentum to force them back. If the offensive player is looking the ball in, they should get hit before they even have time to know they should be putting a move on the defender.

Es gibt keine Freude wie Schadenfreude

by Seer on Sep 13, 2010 8:05 PM CDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

A Michigan State basketball and football blog community

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Help the Big 10 represent and beat the SEC!
Small
Boise State 2012 Preview
Dawson-michigan-state-600x370_small
The Double Standard in SI's Power Rankings
Dawson-michigan-state-600x370_small
Adreian not Bringing the Payne?
Delvonduck_small
MSU Spring Game Fantasy Contest!
Small
Thank Goodness Adreian Payne is OK
200_small
You're a mean one, Mr. Ryan
Small
Snapper Signing Hits the Double Bonus
Small
Derrick Nix arrested and suspended
Sparty_statue2_small
You Better Believe I'll Take It

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Petenewpic_small Pete Rossman

Spiritofd_small LVS

Contributors

Square_sun_small Steve Hendershot

Marvin_small SpartanDan

State_small Con-T

Adorno5_small intrpdtrvlr

Ph2_small patrick_hayes

Spartan_troll_face_2_small HeckDorland

Mug_vanini_chris__2__small ChrisVannini