Mississippi State: Jumping the screen

A series on Michigan's Gator Bowl opponent. You can find all of this content on the 2011 Gator Bowl page in the sidebar. Previously: NCAA rankings, Defense vs. Auburn, Screen defense

Continuing my dissection of Mississippi State's defense against Auburn, I want to take another look at a screen pass example. As I've mentioned several times now, the Bulldogs' defensive alignment was schematically unsound against Auburn's 3x1 alignment. One of the ways they counteracted this was to send their playside linebacker directly at the H receiver (who runs the screen route). In the other example today, Auburn sent their strongside receivers downfield and allowed Cam Newton to make the proper read: throw the screen pass or hit one of the outside receivers on a seam route. In this example, however, they ran an all-out screen pass that almost resulted in catastrophe.

Auburn is in the 3x1 formation they'd shown all game. Mississippi State is once again in their base 4-3 set with two stand-up DEs and the strongside linebacker shaded over the slot receiver. The difference between this defensive alignment and the previous one is that Mississippi State's strongside cornerback is closer to the line of scrimmage.

On the snap, the H receiver starts to bow out for the screen pass. Newton is going to run a play-action in the backfield. You can see the playside cornerback crashing down on the screen pass. The X and Y receivers are headed upfield to block the playside linebacker and cornerback.

Newton is engaged in the play-action mesh and about to pull the ball. It looks like he's reading the playside cornerback, but that seems unlikely given the throw he makes. The interesting part about this play is that the wide receivers don't appear to have the same option that they did in the previous play; they're strictly blockers in this play.

Newton is in the process of throwing the screen, but both the playside cornerback and linebacker are running unblocked toward the H receiver. They've cut under the X and Y receivers and are headed into the backfield. It should've been a pick-6...

...but the cornerback can't quite get a hold of the ball and it falls harmlessly incomplete.

As I mentioned in the comments of the Mississippi State NCAA rankings post, this is a high variance play: if the cornerback makes this interception, it's a pick-6 unless Newton can catch a streaking cornerback. If this pass somehow gets through, or if Auburn's receivers run vertical routes like they did earlier, this is almost certainly a touchdown. Instead, the ball falls harmlessly and we get a look at how Mississippi State tries to defend a screen pass in a structurally unsound formation.

What does it mean?
The philosophy behind this play is more revealing than the result of the play. This was much later in the game after the Bulldogs had been burned multiple times by the screen pass. But instead of shifting their alignment to limit or remove the screen option, they decide to stay within their base formation and attack more aggressively, which tells you something about the Mississippi State defensive coordinator. Michigan has thrived on exploiting opponents' aggressiveness this year. The coaches have enough film on this defense to formulate an attack plan against plays like this.

Again, unless the defensive alignment shifts later in the year, Michigan is going to show a lot of 3x1 offensive formations against Mississippi State. I'd also expect that, in most instances, Michigan's outside receivers are either going to be given an option route (block if the playside defenders stay home, run routes if they crash on the screen pass) or be told to run routes upfield.

This defensive alignment is similar to what Michigan saw against Notre Dame: a strict 4-3 and a coordinator too stubborn to change his personnel when the offensive alignment warrants it. Michigan should be able to exploit this throughout the game, that is unless Mississippi State's defensive alignment becomes more malleable throughout the year, which is pretty likely. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for this in other Mississippi State games.

Mississippi State: Screen defense

A series on Michigan's Gator Bowl opponent. You can find all of this content on the 2011 Gator Bowl page in the sidebar. Previously: NCAA rankings, Defense vs. Auburn

I mentioned in the Mississippi State defensive overview against Auburn that the Bulldogs defensive schemes showed serious problems when handling the screen game. Presumably because of Cam Newton's running ability, Mississippi State continuously put six or seven men in the box and left themselves structurally unsound against screens. For example:

The screen will be thrown to the receiver lined up behind the line of scrimmage on the strong side of the field (for ease's sake, we'll call him the H receiver). The thing to note, however, is the alignment of Mississippi State's defensive backs: they were playing with this deep of a cushion the entire game, not to mention that the numbers are decidedly in Auburn's favor (3 vs. 3). This play ended up going for a touchdown as the playside linebacker came off the edge on a blitz, leaving Auburn with two blockers and two defenders. But primarily, this is just to show another example of (and attack plan against) Auburn's screen game.

One of the more interesting plays is a screen/seam route similar to the Roundtree play-action that Michigan has shown this year.

I posted this picture yesterday to show the weakness in Mississippi State's defensive alignment. Auburn is in the 3x1 formation they showed for much of the game. The Bulldogs are in their 4-3 (with stand-up DEs) and have a linebacker shaded over the slot receiver. With a 15-yard cushion between the line of scrimmage and the deep, strongside safety, this play is certain to be a screen (or at least have a screen option, as we'll see).

(Sorry about the framing, the TV cameras panned in on the play.) On the snap, Auburn runs a play-action. The H receiver is starting to bow out for a screen. The Y and Z receivers are both heading upfield. Rather than blocking the playside linebacker and cornerbacks, however, they'll both run vertical routes.

When Newton pulls the ball down, his first read is the playside linebacker (bottom of the screen) who was lined up over the slot receiver. That linebacker is crashing down hard on the screen pass. The Y and Z receivers are running straight to the second level. I'm pretty sure the Y and Z receivers have a read here too: if the linebacker stays high, they probably stay in to block on the screen. If he crashes on the screen pass, they both run vertical routes.

You can now see the playside linebacker headed directly for the H receiver. The linebacker will end up drilling him in the backfield despite the ball never going to the him. The Y receiver is curling under the middle linebacker five yards down field. The Z receiver is out of the picture but running a similar, deeper curl route underneath the strong safety. Newton recognizes it and is getting ready to throw.

This is just after the Z receiver catches the ball. You can see he still has a seven-yard cushion from the strong safety and no linebackers anywhere near him.

Mississippi State spent the entire game in this sort of coverage. Not only did they leave either the H or Y/Z receivers open, but they failed to compensate for this by aligning their defense in a way that would shut down the screen. Auburn frequently went to the 3x1 alignment and ran similar variations, almost always to resounding effect--save one time, which I'll discuss later, when Newton threw the screen pass to the H receiver despite the linebacker crashing really hard on the play, almost resulting in a pick-6.

What does it mean?
Possibly a lot. Despite a slight alignment shift by Auburn, this 3x1 formation and playcalling have become staples of Michigan's offense, except when teams schematically limit it (i.e., committing another defender to the strong side of the field). If Mississippi State is going to allow Michigan to throw these sorts of passes all game, moving the ball against their defense should be simple so long as Michigan's slot receivers can hold onto the ball (Roundtree...).

This defensive alignment also gives a possible window into the disparity between Mississippi State's rushing defense (20th) and passing defense (89th): they simply sell out on the run. If that's the case, the ball will be put in Denard's hands and we have to hope he's fully healthy and making the proper reads. Then again, a Forcier cameo against this kind of defense would be ideal.

Unfortunately though, this was the second game of the season. I'll be watching many of Mississippi State's games over the next few weeks and looking specifically for their defensive alignment against similar 3x1 attacks. If they don't show any shift in their defensive philosophy against similar looks, expect Michigan to go to this play and variations on it early and often. Not only will it net yards and keep their linebackers honest in the run game, but these are relatively safe passing plays in which Denard won't have to worry too much about making the right read.

Mississippi State: Defense vs. Auburn

A series on Michigan's Gator Bowl opponent. You can find all of this content on the 2011 Gator Bowl page in the sidebar. Previously: NCAA rankings

For scouting purposes, Michigan couldn't get much luckier than to have a full game of film of Mississippi State playing a team with a similar offensive style (and personnel) to Michigan. As such, the early-season game between Mississippi State and Cam Newton's Auburn squad can give at least a little information on how the Bulldogs might try to defend Michigan's attack.

Formations
Mississippi State's defensive formations were a little unorthodox in this game upon first look. Most of the game, the Bulldogs were in a defensive front with two down linemen and two others in a two-point stance on the line:

As you can see, the two defensive tackles are both in a three-point stance with the defensive ends standing up in a two-point stance. At first, I thought that this was in an effort to get more speed on the field, but when I started to look at the personnel, it was a little more confusing: the stand-up defensive ends are actually defensive ends, not faster linebackers to match Auburn's speed. At times, this allowed the DEs to diagnose the play and attack the proper gaps, but for the most part, it played almost exactly like a traditional 4-3, which is what Mississippi State was in for the majority of the game. They also showed a fair amount of 3-4, but primarily, they were in a 4-3.

More interestingly, however, is that the Bulldogs' defense looked fundamentally unsound for a lot of the game. To steal from Chris Brown at Smart Football again, "football begins as arithmetic". Over and over again during this game, Mississippi State was giving Auburn numbers in the screen passing game. For example:

I'll talk about this play later this week (Auburn faked the screen and ended up throwing a vertical route similar to the Roundtree touchdown against Notre Dame), but you can see from the alignment that Mississippi State is conceding the screen pass. And oddly, they seemed content to run this all game. There was one play in which they baited Newton to make a bad throw (I'll discuss this later this week as well), but for the most part, they sat back and gave up seven-yard screen passes all game. Much of this was because they needed to compensate for Newton's speed and put extra players in the box, but there's no reason to think they won't have to do the same against Denard.

Attacking
Mississippi State was pretty blitz heavy throughout the game. I didn't take note of their blitzing percentage, but safe to say it's high. For most of the game, they blitzed from only one side of the field, trying to force Newton out of the pocket, which he exploited either by scrambling for large chunks of yards or rumbling in the pocket long enough to find an open receiver. Denard's increased tendency to run out of the pocket against Ohio State (despite the one fumble) may being the Achilles heel of Mississippi State.

How did they slow down Cam Newton?
They shut him down occasionally with blitzes, but that was about it. The reason this game was as close as it was is because Mississippi State slowed the game down pretty significantly, reducing the amount of possessions Auburn had (that and a muffed punt that lost Auburn a possession, as well as a recovered surprise onside kick). Auburn had the ball nine times excluding end-of-half possessions. Those resulted in two touchdowns, one made field goal, an interception, a missed field goal, and four punts.

The punts largely came on the heels of big negative plays resulting from Mississippi State's blitzing. But those same blitzes also cost them on a number of plays. The Bulldogs' defensive scheme was primarily to put pressure on Newton and live with the outcomes. For the most part, it was successful, but with more time to prepare, Michigan may be able to counteract a lot of these blitzes.

The interception wasn't really anything other than a bad throw by Newton. Mississippi State didn't bring pressure or show different looks, but Newton threw into double coverage against cover-2, and it ended about as you'd expect.

What does it mean?
With the caveat that this is only one game early in the season, Mississippi State's defense looked vulnerable against a similar offense with a similarly dynamic player. They repeatedly had schematic holes, primarily in the screen game, that Michigan's offense will aim to exploit. The Bulldogs didn't do anything all that interesting, aside from their faux-4-3 with stand-up DEs, but otherwise, they ran a blitz-heavy scheme that sold out on the run. IMO, Rich Rod's gameplanning to counteract this sort of attack throughout the year was far superior to Gene Chizik's in this game. But this was early in the season and we can presume that Auburn didn't have its full offensive arsenal. Regardless, this was an encouraging display, despite holding Auburn to just 17 points.

Mississippi State: NCAA rankings

Ed. note: Over the next few weeks, I'll be taking some time to break down Mississippi State film and see how Michigan matches up. First up, by the numbers.

Like most of you, I didn't see a whole ton of Mississippi State's games this year, something that will hopefully change if I can get a hold of some torrents. So right now, I don't have much to go on besides NCAA standings and various box scores. In the interest of talking about football when little else is going on, let's take a look at Michigan's bowl opponent strictly by the numbers. NCAA rankings:

• Rushing offense: 16th nationally; 215.75 yards per game,  4.61 yards per carry
• Passing offense: 91st nationally;  178.58 yards per game,  8.09 yards per attempt
• Scoring offense: 58th nationally;  27.08 points per game

All of that paints the picture of a run-first team that uses the run to set up some crushing play-action passes. The good news for Michigan is that Mississippi State doesn't have the Scott Tolzien or Ricky Stanzi-like prototypical drop back QB who is going to pick apart Michigan's defense (starter Chris Relf is completing only 56% of his passes). Unfortunately, because of the play-action, Michigan will probably spend very little time blitzing with their linebackers, opening up running lanes for a potent attack. However, Mississippi State only ranks 50th in passing efficiency, so the play-action may not be quite as effective as the numbers indicate. This side of the ball may very well come down to the reaction time of Mouton, Demens, and Ezeh, as well as aggressive playcalling on Greg Robinson's behalf.

• Rushing defense: 20th; 121.67 yards per game, 3.56 yards per attempt
• Passing defense: 89th;  236.42 yards per game, 7.00 yards per attempt
• Scoring defense: 27th; 20.33 points per game

These are pretty middling numbers, frankly. While their rush defense appears to be strong, both Iowa and Ohio State are ranked well above them, and Mississippi State's numbers are almost identical to those of Michigan State's. Michigan rushed for 4.8 YPC against MSU, 4.4 YPC against Ohio State, and 4.5 YPC against Iowa. So while each of those defenses slowed Michigan's ground game, expecting Mississippi State to do much more than that is unlikely.

What killed Michigan in each of those three games were turnovers. They had 10 combined in those losses and at least three in each game. Mississippi State's scoring defense seems somewhat incongruous with their yardage allowed (primarily 89th in passing defense), but a quick look at turnovers shows that they are 21st nationally in turnovers gained with 26. FWIW, Ohio State is 12th (29), Iowa is 47th (22), and MSU is 34th (24). If Michigan doesn't shoot themselves in the foot, chances are they'll be able to move the ball pretty well against a so-so defense.

What does it mean? On paper at least, this seems like a really good matchup for Michigan. Mississippi State's run defense is strong but on par or worse than three units Michigan has already seen and moved the ball effectively against. In terms of pass defense, statistically they are sandwiched between Purdue and Indiana, two teams that offered very little in the way of resistance (save the former's awful weather conditions).

On the other side of the ball, Mississippi State either can't or willfully hasn't shown the ability to exploit Michigan's greatest weakness: the passing game. They rarely throw the ball and rely primarily on a solid rushing attack. Michigan's traditional 4-3 did wonders against Ohio State's rush attack (the 89-yard, Vinopal-missed-tackle run excluded, Ohio State averaged 3.8 YPC), and a healthy Mike Martin could go a long way to shutting down Mississippi State's running game.

Turnovers look like they'll be the deciding factor in this one. If Michigan can hold onto the ball, they should be able to move up and down the field on Mississippi State. Then again, they did hold Auburn to only 17 points. But Auburn had two turnovers (an interception and a fumble) as well as a significant yardage disparity (348 vs. 246) that indicates they should've won by significantly more. I'll be watching this game to see what exactly Mississippi State did to hold down Cam Newton and the Auburn offense, but suffice it to say, I'd bet Auburn shot themselves in the foot a lot (a quick spot check shows a missed field in addition to the aforementioned turnovers).

On Dee Hart and other random thoughts

Decommitin'
So Twitter was abuzz last night about the probably decommit of running back Demetrius Hart. Hart was a big pull for Michigan, despite his status as a heavy Michigan lean for his entire recruiting process. He was a high four-star, near five-star running back that seemed prefect for Michigan's attack. On Hart's potential, MGoBlog writes:

Hart's talent may be too much to keep off the field. He will probably get shuffled in during his true freshman year, become a big part of the rotation as a sophomore, and then have the opportunity to star as a junior and senior. As with Steve Slaton before him, Hart could become a Heisman contender before leaving Rich Rodriguez's program.

That's not-so-subtle praise from a source that doesn't joke around with these things. Hart is a wonderful player who seems to fit the mold for Rodriguez's system. Excitement was warranted.

With his decommit, however, I don't think anyone needs to panic. Plainly put, one or two players like Hart come along every year. This is not a Devin Gardner/Terrelle Pryor situation, where you have an incredible and elusive combination of raw talent and amazing physical attributes. The presence of Hart in Michigan's backfield would be a wonderful addition, but not something that will make Michigan a substantially better team.

If the offense merely holds serve next year, Michigan will be fine. Let's not forget that what's holding this team back is its defense. With expected improvements on that side of the ball next year, the loss of Hart will seem like an afterthought. Not to mention that Michigan's stable of running backs was largely injured this year. A healthier crew would probably force Hart into a supporting role at best. And, mark my words, there will be another player like Hart next year that Michigan will have a chance with, though maybe not quite as strong.

Speaking of depth charts and injuries...
Troy Woolfolk. I had a chance to sit down and discuss Michigan's defensive depth chart for next year, and things look practically, well, decent. Woolfolk's return next year could turn this secondary into an average or slightly above average unit. Upon his return, Woolfolk could end up either at free safety or cornerback, but given the depth chart, chances are he'll be a safety. Michigan's secondary would then approximately look like:

	CB	FS	CB
Starter	JT Floyd	Troy Woolfolk	Courtney Avery
2nd String	Terrence Talbott	Cullen Christian	Dallas Crawford
3rd String	Delonte Hollowell	Ray Vinopal	Greg Brown

This assumes a few things. First, that Courtney Avery will be in the starting lineup next year. He's shown marked improvement this year and looks poised to become a decent-to-good Big Ten cornerback. Unless we see drastic improvement from one of the other freshmen corners over the offseason, I think Avery is solidifying himself as the starter opposite Floyd.

This also assumes that Vinopal doesn't show significant improvement. I'm actually pretty high on Vinopal, despite the fact that he's a tiny freshman. I think he's got a lot more speed than people realize and appears to have a good nose for the ball. But given the depth chart as it is, I feel like Woolfolk would be better used as a safety, adding more depth to that position. Also, it seems like Christian will move to the free safety position with the influx of cornerbacks in the 2011 recruiting class, his inability to see the field, and his size making him look more like a safety than corner.

But when Michigan's recruiting class is finally complete and we approach next season, we'll all know more about this. Regardless, your starters next year in the secondary project to be a redshirt junior, fifth year senior, and true sophomore with playing experience. It's still a wildly young secondary, but it's getting to the point where the starters have some experience and the backups are either talented or have experience of their own, unlike this year.

Programming
Starting next week, I should be back to a regular posting schedule. I may take a peek back at the Ohio State game and see what we can glean. Plus we'll know our bowl opponent that we can discuss.