After a good, safe trip back from Sweden I was able to watch the MSU and Purdue games in (at times) excruciating detail. I'm not really going to comment directly on the MSU game (Dave already did that here) with one major exception. As for the Purdue game, I have quite a bit to say.
Michigan State
The one thing I tried to pinpoint when watching this game was why we were successful running the ball at some points during the game while not being successful at others. I devoted my entire viewing experience to this one item and found some pretty interesting things that seemed to carry over into the Purdue game.
First, against MSU we seemed to only run the ball successfully using zone toss plays to the weak side of the offensive formation. A large part of this success was due to slow reaction by the defense primarily caused by them over-playing our strong side and the blocking of Schwapp. He played pretty well in this game when asked to block a linebacker one-on-one. Additionally, the blocking of our wide receivers was improved, particularly West. When we tried to run it up the middle, no matter which back or what type of blocking scheme we used, we didn't have much success. In fact, I would argue that the only positive yardage we gained on these plays was almost all due to the effort of our running backs.
Then I took a closer look. It makes no sense to me that we can't convert ANY third and fourth down short yardage situations on the ground. Normally I would blame Weis for poor play calling but I think he is trying to prove a point and make our team tougher. It's hard for me to argue against this giving that I believe you don't deserve to win when you can't pick up a yard on the ground. What I did notice, however, is that the defensive line seemed to nearly always get off the ball before and quicker than we did. So I started watching our running plays in slow motion and came to the following conclusion: we are going on the same quarterback cadence on ever play.
I think that, due to early false start penalties against Georgia Tech and Penn State and to give the offensive line less to remember, Weis has gone to a pretty consistent snap count in order to "dumb things down." We have gotten far fewer false start penalties but the defenses have started to pick up on this and are using it to their advantage. For an offense, knowing the snap count is a huge advantage. Most often this advantage comes into play as the offensive line can get push by obtaining a superior position of leverage on the defensive line. For us, it seems that this has been reversed. We don't get push on running plays because we don't get off the ball quicker than our defensive counterparts and can't get into a position of leverage.
Let me say that I cannot definitively prove this. I can't hear the snap count and trying to measure the time it takes to get to the line of scrimmage and execute a play isn't a good judge of the quarterback cadence. Too much is going on at the line of scrimmage to tell. In the Purdue game I saw more of this, especially with our guards on inside running plays. The way in which we have been unable to protect our quarterbacks in the passing game also supports this conjecture.
The advantage of the defense knowing the snap count really only allows them to get penetration. It is primarily an advantage on the outside, coming off the edge, although it is also advantageous when trying to stack the line on short yardage plays, particularly at the goal line. So it makes sense that most of our sacks have come from outside pressure when the defensive lineman is getting a head start, so to speak, on our offensive tackles.
A few other things I saw in the MSU game was the physicality of MSU's secondary and lack of physical play of our secondary. Ringer had many good runs on the outside where Walls et. al. were getting blocked seven to eight yards down the field. I also think we played a lot of man coverage in this game (and in all our games) because we need to be able to keep seven in the box to have any chance of stopping the run especially since we only have one good defensive lineman.
Purdue
The Purdue game is one of those games where you have to ask the question(s) are we improved or are they just not any good. I think the true answer is somewhere in between both ends of the spectrum but I would like to say (and have before) that Brock Spack has no business being a Division I defensive coordinator and that Purdue's secondary is terrible. I believe they will lose 3-5 games in the Big Ten portion of their schedule this year because their secondary is awful, they can't get pressure on the quarterback with their front four, and they won't be able to protect Painter with only five against the more athletic defensive lines they face. Additionally, I didn't think Painter looked particularly good. The numbers were good but he made a lot of poor throws.
The Quarterback Controversy
First things first, I don't think Sharpley played better than Clausen. I thought both played well. There's a pretty good comparison of their play here. But the biggest difference to me in this game versus the past four was in our ability to protect the quarterback. I don't know if we improved quite a bit, if it was because they weren't blitzing all that often, or because we seemed to do a better job with our running backs protecting in the backfield, but we really gave our quarterbacks a lot more time. It was likely a combination of the three things listed that led to our success.
I thought Clausen showed more zip on his balls than in the past. He continues to impress me with his ability to throw to a spot, not to a receiver. He has tremendous accuracy and is very tough. He does stare down receivers, occasionally forces some balls, and has some coverage recognition problems. But those are mostly problems associated with youth and inexperience, not talent. He is also inconsistent with his timing on throws. Sometimes he puts the ball right where it needs to be, before the receiver comes out of his break. Other times he waits too long giving the defender time to come back to the ball. Most of this should be worked out with repetition and getting used to his receivers.
My biggest concern with Clausen is his ability to throw down the field. I haven't seen him throw it further than 45 yards and when I have he seems to put a lot of air under it. A good quarterback can throw it 55-60 yards down the field on the outside with pretty good velocity.
I thought Sharpley played much better than he did against Georgia Tech, particularly when pressured. He had more poise in the pocket, moved around better, and was able to get rid of the ball or turn potential negative gains into positive gains or no losses quite a few times. I think Sharpley has a stronger arm than Clausen but often times he throws to a man, not to a spot. This results in him not leading his receivers, losing precious RAC (Run After the Catch) yards. Like Clausen, he locks onto receivers and forces some passes. But again, this can be corrected. Ware's assertion that the team responded more to Sharpley didn't seem to be the case to me.
General Comments
We can't win kicking the ball off to their fifteen yard line, giving the opposition good field position, getting stupid penalties, not sustaining drives, or missing two extra points (really three) and having a field goal blocked. Take those five points plus the seven we left on the field when Sharpley threw his interception and the game is completely different. While we had good field position this game, Purdue started many drives on their own 40-ish yard line. That's too short of a field. We gave them six first downs via penalties. On one of Purdue's scoring drives in the second half we gave up 35 yards in penalties on a short field. We should have just given them the seven points and saved our energy. That's just unacceptable. They ran 40+ plays in the first half. That's nearly as many as some teams run in a game. We have to be more consistent in getting first downs and keeping our defense off the field. When we sustained drives in the second half the game started to turn our way. The defense was fresher, they fed on the offense's improved play, and we played better as a team. And we can't give up third and a mile, it's just unacceptable.
Offensive Standouts
Dave was right all along. Our receivers are quickly becoming a strength. And I'm not just talking about Golden Tate. I know everyone is in love with him right now but it's been one game. He is far from becoming a complete player and he will hit some bumps along the way. Obviously he has tremendous speed and athleticism, including a surprising ability to go up for the ball. But being a great receiver is far more than this. It is about precision, running routes in a consistent manner, and being able to make three different routes look identical until the cut.
Kamara is really coming into his own. He is learning how to use his body to shield defenders. With his big frame this is invaluable. West is superb on comeback routes and out in the open field with the ball. Parris has excellent hands and a great feel for how to sit down in the zone. About the only receiver I wasn't pleased with was Carlson. His blocking was poor again and he dropped a few catchable balls.
The offensive line played much better in terms of pass protection but this may be a result of Purdue's lack of quality defensive linemen. I was very disappointed in our inability to run the ball especially considering we significantly outweighed them up front. When we face a team with defensive ends that weigh in the 240 lbs range we should be able to run it right at them. We can't block away from the play on any type of stretch and Sullivan's play on short yardage downs was particularly disappointing. I thought he was supposed to be our fifth year senior leader. I still can't believe we aren't stronger, more physical, and quicker off the ball. Someone needs to light a fire in these guys.
I thought Jabbie played well but he was really the only back who had room to work due to our improved passing game opening up the run. Allen looked much faster in this game than in the past making some pretty unbelievable cuts. I wish we could open up some more holes for him.
One thing that particularly concerns me about our running game is that it seems to take too long to develop. I don't know if this is due to Aldridge and Hughes being slower, more bruising type of backs, if the plays are designed to take too long, if we can't sustain blocks, or if we are lining up too deep in the backfield, but something has to give. We need to get back to the line of scrimmage with the ball much more quickly.
Defensive Standouts
There were two things on defense that stood out to me more than anything else. First, when we were able to get pressure on Painter with our front four we were largely successful. When we couldn't he had a lot of time and we didn't cover well down the field. It's tough to ask our secondary to do that. This is the primary reason we allowed third and a mile to be converted.
Second, our inside linebacker play is absolutely atrocious. They don't know the meaning of words/phrases like "scrape," "pursue down the line of scrimmage," "fill the hole," or "attack downhill." Crum and Brockington take too long to read the play, don't step up to meet blocks at the point of attack, take terrible angles to the ball, and do not pursue at a shallow angle to the line of scrimmage. They both played extremely poor football. The 3-4 defense is predicated on being able to free up your inside linebackers letting them run to the ball. In this game they were free for a good amount of time but they hesitated, didn't read/react quickly, and then allowed an offensive lineman to get to them 3-4 yards down the field. It's just pathetic.
Mendoza needs to get our defense stronger and bigger without sacrificing speed. Particular attention needs to be paid to McNeil and Walls but it won't hurt Ryan and the rest of our linebacking corps. Kerry Neal cannot play defensive end in a four man front. He was owned most of the day.
We didn't tackle particularly well in the open field at times. If I were an opposing team I would run right at Deon Sanders, er Darrin Walls. The kid just can't fight off a block and make a play on a running back.
About the only bright spots I saw on defense was the play of Kyle McCarthy and Trevor Laws. Laws just can't be blocked by one person. Additionally, I thought we played with renewed passion in the second half.
Motivated Vs. Inconsistent
Speaking of passion I wanted to make a distinction about something I saw in the game prompted by a comment from a friend. Call it what you want (passionate, inspired, or determined), playing tough, hard, fast, football is largely about the attitude of motivated individuals. Sometimes I think this is confused with inconsistent play. In the first half we played largely unmotivated and inconsistent, in the second, we played inconsistently but with motivation. Not playing with motivation is disastrous for a young or under-manned team. We are currently the former and at times this year will also be the latter.
Inconsistent play is dropping passes, protecting your quarterback at times while not at others, not being able to pick up positive yardage every time you run the ball, and stupid penalties. That is expected of young teams and corrected by repetitions in practice. I don't blame this much on the coaching staff except for when it pertains to our more veteran players, or if these inconsistencies continue as our young players become more experienced. I expected inconsistent play from this team and was one of the reasons I thought we would struggle to win some of our more winnable games.
Motivation, on the other hand, has two parts. Part of being a motivated team comes from the coaching staff, particularly the head coach. I would use the term "prepared" but it is basically having the team in the right mindset, properly motivated to play the game. It is different from X's and O's preparation. Being poorly prepared in terms of offensive and defensive strategies shows up in the game as not putting your players in positions to make plays and win the game. That wasn't (and isn't) the problem. Being prepared from a motivation perspective is all about the team's attitude, no fear, expecting to win, being pumped up and ready to play. This is the area I believe Weis has struggled.
But motivation also comes from the players themselves, especially from the leaders. And I'm not sure I've ever seen a more poorly led team than the one we have fielded this year. I know some people lead by example, but there seems to be a huge disconnect between how Sullivan, Laws, Zibi, Thomas, and Crum lead and what the team needs.
Conclusions
I think it is a huge testament to the amount of talent we have on our team that we were even in the game against Purdue. We played error football, had three turnovers, gave the opposition excellent field position, and couldn't sustain drives for an entire half, yet we were still in the game. I don't believe it should have taken this long (or a defensive team this poor) to see an offense capable of scoring but it is what it is. I hope this game serves as a confidence builder for our future. My only question is how many of our games this year would we have won had we played them like we played in the second half against Purdue? I would wager Purdue, MSU, and Penn State.
