Michigan squared off against the Spartans as a clear favorite, led by their powerful run game that consistently maintained RPO and edge threats to stress defensive keys and numbers. But on Saturday, Michigan State mostly shut down that run game. In this post, we're going to look at what the Spartans did to stymie the run game, and where Michigan failed to capitalize.
 |
| Michigan Photography |
Read Your Keys, Trust the Process
Against Minnesota, Michigan was largely gap scheme driven. They dabbled only very rarely in zone schemes and maintained that philosophy against the Spartans. In the scouting report, MSU drove home two aspects: 1) Find the puller; follow him; 2) Trust the backend to limit the outside threats, we're going to stop the interior run. Nick Baumgardner of The Athletic highlighted that in this tweeted video.
Follow the guard, don’t miss tackles, win inside.
— Nick Baumgardner (@nickbaumgardner) November 3, 2020
Michigan State’s plan for Michigan was sound on both sides of the ball. Especially defensively.
To the film for a look at how Antjuan Simmons and Co. frustrated and defended Michigan. https://t.co/hq4soIShKZ pic.twitter.com/KxPf67bYKG
There may or may not be a true read here. MSU half-ass flows to the Tare motion with the nickel though and it's enough to dissuade the throw, while the interior players rip playside by following the puller (both the NT is able to cross face of the Center and the LB is able to go under the down block. Missed blocks, assisted by how quickly the Spartan LBs are diagnosing and attacking, kill the front side. This lack of edge threat consistently from Michigan is proving to the Spartans that "trust the process" is correct.
Tweet Barage
I did film breakdowns in Twitter, and rather than re-write everything (apologies to those that like written blogs over video, I'm with you, but I'm also lazy here), I'm just going to embed the tweets.
Some thoughts on UM run O vs MSU. I'm a firm believer that you can run from spread or from heavy/condensed, but how to get numbers/advantage has to change between the two. Michigan is struggling with their hybrid approach.
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
As Meyer said, spread utilizes: Numbers per space, Leverage, Reads to make right. It lacks some diversity by pure lack of bodies, but you can overcome that. Note though, that if you over-rely on "read", then defenses can start dictating. I'll come back to this
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
In condensed/heavy sets, you will often lack same numbers approach. But you make it work by: Reads, leaving least dangerous unblocked to regain numbers via "wash", leverage, and diversity (including false keys)
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
MSU was keying pullers as Michigan remained gap driven. Michigan did not provide false keys regularly and that allowed MSU to play frontside games that Michigan failed to adjust to while never attacking the backside. They blocked like spread while running condensed, and it failed
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
On Saturday, UM ran a lot of condensed heavy. In it, they regularly failed to target front side players, wasted players on backside, allowed defense to get 2 for 1 on Q Boot, and regularly failed to read or take the leverage advantage they were given on outside sweeps
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Michigan 1st run play of the day. A rare zone call that gets exactly what they want formationally, but they never return to pic.twitter.com/405qWHoiCN
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
2nd play. ILB keys pull and flies downhill. Frontside combo never gets to 2nd level. Meanwhile, edge option is wide open but not a read, so UM can’t take what is given pic.twitter.com/YNVte0RLk4
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Another missed assignment as MSU exchanges gaps on front side. FB and Kick blocker end up on same guy and MSU gets a free hitter pushing everything back to the backside. May want RT to bluff end before working to second level to hold him outside if they want this hitting inside pic.twitter.com/64UYxR3QFg
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
OZ RPO, same as 1st play vs Minn. Great D playcall with T-T stunt; great play by NT. UM should be able to stay on tracks and seal DTs backside and block this up, but tough ask. MSU speeds up QB with 2 in backfield. If not sped up, can read LB shoulders and throw swing = big play pic.twitter.com/eT7PJ5Uqtm
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Counter CH. Needed to audible here as MSU had numbers advantage plus a good playcall. But also missed execution takes play tough sledding to fighting to prevent a TFL pic.twitter.com/ZeM4gZg5d4
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
I’m trying to point out formational aspects from both O and D that typically get lost with casual fans. It’s clear formationally Michigan prepped for MSU, and likely leaned too much on tendency which led pre-snap decisions but left UM unprepared post-snap
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Lead Duo out of Wildcat. Actually interesting play design, deep back leads thru while RB reads the blocks. Hate the situational playcall, design is kinda cool. MSU out-executes big time pic.twitter.com/j0xtEti5Wu
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Another nice design. Q pin and pull with split action from the RB. Presnap bubble option becomes open but is really just a presnap read and Apex not back in play. Milton needs distance from puller then a big play. Great play by Simmons here pic.twitter.com/NbxAe3rCdd
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Counter OH PAP. Gets 2nd level to bite, which is good (and should be good enough for a intermediate gain) but refusing to use a false key to force flow opposite. LBs key pull and leverage all other routes pic.twitter.com/oPPVJjcMBW
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Big win for NT vs C sets up the rest of the play. Another example of pull taking LBs (and playside CB) right to play as UM refuses to take chances on edge pic.twitter.com/aE2HPBqyko
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
MSU twists the LBs and UM doesn’t do great post snap, but more they are just losing blocks 1v1 at the point of attack pic.twitter.com/ufpuboVKBE
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Successful Counter CF here. MSU caught in a twist and this play would be a big gain following the block or the cutback pic.twitter.com/T7f4RCYUHg
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Good use of personnel, formation, and design from Michigan. A LB won’t keep up with a WR sliding out of the backfield. Probably not going to hit this too many times, but can still run the action, give the RB, and force LBs to hesitate pic.twitter.com/GLJKI0cRHg
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
OZ RPO with a slant-flat. Execute both ends well. Really with they would have stuck to running OZ to the short side pic.twitter.com/cZhLRCgVxE
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Back to Power again. Not great execution, never get to the MIKE as the FB/RT don’t successfully combo. But you get a RB vs CB on the edge because you block safeties. Get on the edge with condensed formations to create space pic.twitter.com/TTUr2PMYIL
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
More accurate commentary on the blocking with better view pic.twitter.com/P1G8Bso8pI
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Sweep. Easy money with all the man coverage and LBs worried about interior fits. Attack edge, should have been on repeat pic.twitter.com/4fF8CEsN7z
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Schematic win for Michigan, good play by MSU DE keeps it in check. Maybe a little predetermined by Milton, but UM should have kept going back to this formation vs MSU C1 pic.twitter.com/CedesX8cPt
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Pin and pull, bread and butter play for Michigan. Get a schematic win with the motion and RB on CB. A rare instance of MSU not successfully triggering on the pull pic.twitter.com/gmKirqh5eQ
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
This is how you block this power scheme. Great pull by the RG here. RB vs CB pic.twitter.com/V83t11TXZa
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Michigan gets the count wrong but it works out as Milton makes a play in space. Actually really well defended by MSU on the slide RPO pic.twitter.com/pREXNKNhzJ
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Finally a false pull and a boot... pic.twitter.com/gvjIsXYITB
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
End around off of the same side counter look. Again puller takes to play, but in this case it keeps the BSLB inside as Michigan can outflank the defense. Rinse repeat pic.twitter.com/hOMOqyS15o
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Pass play. A few quick throws Milton struggled to read underneath. This one potentially more scary. Easy read to run off coverage and then high low the flat once C3 is identified. Milton forces it instead of letting Bell make a play from the flat pic.twitter.com/8zHjaADs2J
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Another examples of Power. UM again fails to ID second level but better job at point of attack and playside is sealed. RB makes a guy miss and is off pic.twitter.com/uY2FMGDytU
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Nice screen design gets a guy in space. A center block away from 1v1 on safety 15 yards deep pic.twitter.com/QKOufeJsj3
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
That's all I got. Michigan had success on the edge. Had some successful instances of executing Power showing that it worked vs what MSU was showing, but way too inconsistent with ID blockers and never really took full advantage of attacking pullers
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
I get Michigan's plan with condensed formations, and think it could have helped them attack space (you saw examples of that). Formationally, I think they were smart to attack MSU D. I think they had some of the elements of a good plan, but not fully executed (the plan that is)
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
I don't mind them not have a RRO read every play. Do that, and let the D dictate you. I get not running the QB primarily, I don't think that alone was the real answer. But they failed to repeatedly attack the edge to soften up the interior and failed to attack false keys.
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
MSU, meanwhile, executed their scheme very well. They trusted their process and called Michigan's bluff on the edges. They spiked the End and exchanged with the LB: spill, lever. They won one v one blocks on the interior. And their LBs played sound, smart, and aggressive
— Space Coyote (@SpaceCoyoteBDS) November 3, 2020
Wrapping it up: After re-watch, I'm less disappointed in Michigan's plan to attack MSU. I think formationally, personnel, and play scheme given their base was mostly good. What I disliked was how they adjusted their plan in-game. Should have used more zone, should have attacked boundary more, especially in unbalanced. Should have attacked the edge more. Those things could have opened up the run game quite a bit and really took pressure off Milton. Eventually, Milton will have to prove he can hit downfield throws, but I think there are other elements of the attack that Michigan could have leaned on to get there in this game.
Mag-post ng isang Komento