Michigan vs Mississippi State Part Six: Final Prediction

This is the final part of my extensive series analyzing Michigan's matchup vs Mississippi State in the Gator Bowl on New Year's Day.  Previous posts are found below:

Michigan's Offense vs Mississippi State's Defense
Analyzing Auburn's Offense vs Mississippi State's Defense
Michigan's Defense vs Mississippi State's Offense
Analyzing Mississippi State's Offense vs Kentucky
Analyzing Michigan's Defense vs Illinois' Offense

Now that I've overanalyzed the game to death, time to make my final predictions for the game.


Mississippi State's strengths are their red zone defense, as well as their running game and confusion they create with it on offense.  Michigan's strengths all lie on offense, and they struggle to stop both the running and passing game (but especially passing). 


Another factor not visited yet, is that Michigan is forced to go for almost every 4th down due to lack of a kicking game, which will come into play against MSU's great red zone defense.  The key factor in this game is Michigan converting in the red zone, and not getting forced into 3rd and longs/4th down conversions/FG attempts.  If Michigan has to depend on their kicking game to bail them out three or four times in the red zone, you may as well chalk up a win for Mississippi State.

What Michigan needs to do to win:

• Follow their defensive assignments!  If Michigan can maintain their defensive assignments against the triple option, and constant motion of players in Mississippi State's offense, they've got a great chance in this game, and should pull out a victory.  As bad as our pass defense is, Michigan still needs to force Miss. St. into passing situations, where Chris Relf isn't the most disciplined passer.
• Exploit Mississippi State through the zone read, QB Runs and WR screens.  As shown in my 2nd post, Auburn had great success running WR screens and QB Power plays.  We need to mix up these plays well, and that should be done if Denard's making all his correct reads on zone read plays.  He has the option to hand it off, throw it to the WR screen or keep the ball himself on every zone read play, and if he can make the right decisions in a hostile environment (the game is in Florida against an SEC school), the offense will be able to move right down the field without much trouble.
• No turnovers!  Mississippi State recovers most of the fumbles they force, and forces 2+ turnovers a game on defense.  If Denard takes care of the ball, Michigan will be in great shape to pull out what I consider an upset victory.
• Convert in the red zone or make big plays to avoid the red zone.  The Wolverines need to return to being a big play offense like they were earlier in the year against their non-conference schedule.  If they can get a few long runs from Denard, or a couple long runs and a few long passes, it will bode well for Michigan.  They can't get stuck in too many red zone situations, because Mississippi State only allows TDs on 44% of red zone possessions on defense.  If they can convert against Miss. St.'s red zone defense, Michigan stands a great chance in this game, because that's what has helped keep MSU in games this year.
• Don't get hurt Denard!  Denard needs to avoid major hits in this game, because Tate Forcier has been ruled academically ineligible for the game.  If Robinson gets hurt, Devin Gardner will have to waste his redshirt on a few drives in a mediocre bowl game.  Rather than having Gardner for 4 more years, we'll only have him for 3 years (should he even stay here if Rich Rod departs, but that's a separate issue altogether).  If it means giving up 2-3 yards, Denard needs to get down, because he's going to have 20 carries in this game, it's basically a lock.

My predictions for the game to make me look stupid later:

• Michigan runs for 200+ yards and 3 touchdowns, even against a strong rushing defense.
• Denard accounts for 80% of Michigan's offense, as the RBs are largely shut down by the MSU linebacker corps.
• Vick Ballard (MSU) runs for 100+, Relf runs for 80 yards and also passes for 175 while completing at least 65% of his passes.
• Michigan goes for it on at least six 4th downs, partially due to not trusting the kicking game, and also because Rich Rod will throw caution to the wind, knowing he needs to impress with a win in this game.
• Michigan's defense struggles to stop Mississippi State's complex rushing offense and loses their defensive assignments often, as they have all year.
• Michigan loses the turnover battle 3-1 (not counting turnovers on downs).
• Final Score - Mississippi State: 35   Michigan: 28

Michigan vs Mississippi State Part Five: Michigan's Defense vs Illinois' Offense

This is the fifth post in an extensive series covering the matchup of Michigan and Mississippi State in the Gator Bowl on New Year's Day.  Previous posts can be found below:

Michigan's Offense vs Mississippi State's Defense
Analyzing Auburn's Offense vs Mississippi State's Defense
Michigan's Defense vs Mississippi State's Offense
Analyzing Mississippi State's Offense vs Kentucky

We'll look at two triple option plays Illinois ran against Michigan in this game to show how Michigan should and shouldn't defend it against Mississippi State.

Illinois opens in a Shotgun - 2 WR Right formation with 2 RBs in the backfield and is running a triple option.  In a triple option there are three ways the ball can go.  The QB can hand it off to one RB, or run an option to one side of the field with the other RB.  At that point the QB can keep the ball, or lateral the ball to the RB following him. Michigan is running with a 4 man line (smart!) and has 8 men in the box to defend the run against Illinois who doesn't have the best passer at quarterback (sounds like Mississippi State!).  Michigan is going to slant its line to run right (away from Kovacs), but Illinois' triple option is running the opposite way (towards Kovacs).

Cameron Gordon at the bottom of the screen and Jordan Kovacs at the top both have the job of containing the run to the inside.  Both are blitzing, but must do so to the outside of Illinois' offensive formation, in order to eliminate the possibility of a run getting outside the 8 defenders at the line of scrimmage.  If the run does get to the outside, Michigan will be in big trouble. 

The RB didn't receive the handoff and Nathan Scheelhaas (the QB) still has the ball.  Uh-oh.  All eight Michigan defenders at the line of scrimmage bit on the fake to the first RB.  Kovacs is circled in blue, as he blitzed to the inside, which as we'll see in the next frame screws up Michigan's defense.  Had he stayed outside of at least the quarterback, he would have forced Scheelhaas to pitch the ball to the RB. Illinois would have had a decent gain, but would have been stopped, as Ray Vinopal will come up from the deep safety spot to attack the option play, and likely would have stopped the RB.  The two linebackers, Jonas Mouton and Kenny Demens, are both looking inwards at the initial run fake, and will be too late to react to the option play going outside.  They expected Kovacs to contain the run or at least the quarterback.  As you can see, Michigan needs to keep its assignments as I emphasized in the last post, or things will go haywire on defense.

Ray Vinopal is circled and came up from his deep safety position.  Downfield, an Illinois WR has put a block on Courtney Avery, the CB to that side of the field.  Normally on this play, Kovacs would have been watching Scheelhaas the QB, while Vinopal would have watched the RB, going farther outside the play.  Instead, Vinopal is left to defend both, chooses Scheelhaas, and Michigan's hope of stopping the play ends here.  Had Vinopal maintained his assignment outside, Mouton might have gotten the tackle on Scheelhaas after a decent-sized gain, making Illinois continue the drive.  Instead, Mouton has to scramble to try to catch the RB running straight ahead at full speed.





Mouton misses the tackle above, and Jason Ford is left with only paydirt ahead.  Michigan (specifically Kovacs, and Vinopal to a lesser extent) didn't follow their assignments, lost contain on the run play, and because of that, Illinois' more athletic players bounced the play outside, dooming Michigan who stacked the box with 8 defenders.  The approach they had here was fine, the execution was simply poor.

How to defend the option correctly:

Illinois again opens in a Shotgun - 2 WR Right - 2 RB formation.  They'll be running the triple option again here.  Michigan opens in the same formation as in the first example, with a 4-man line, 2 LBs, Cameron Gordon (hybrid LB/S), and Jordan Kovacs in the box.  This time, the play is run at Gordon (to the bottom of the 8 men in the box), so he needs to keep contain on the QB.

Scheelhaas keeps the ball rather than handing it to the first RB, so the option will be going outside.  The two linebackers (again Mouton and Demens) are watching the play, Mouton watching up the middle, Demens watching to see if the run goes outside towards one of the tackles or if the option goes outside. Demens and Gordon are both unblocked, so Michigan has one defender to account for each offensive player.



Gordon keeps contain on the quarterback, forcing the pitch outside, and is inches away from actually batting down the lateral.  Demens is left to account for the RB.  What we can't see though that Demens knows, is that he has help below the screen in CB J.T. Floyd, so Michigan has a 2 on 1 opportunity here.  Demens' job is just to make Ford hesitate and decide to either run directly at him, or let him choose to run at J.T. Floyd, and allow Floyd to corral Demens.

Ford hesitates enough that even Cam Gordon has been able to get back in the play and Vinopal comes up from his deep safety spot to fill the last remaining gap.  There are now 4 Michigan defenders accounting for Ford, and this play will go for a loss.  Michigan executed perfectly here, and Demens did a great job not trying to be a hero and get the tackle himself, instead playing his assignment and pushing Ford outside to where he has help.  Had Gordon not kept contain on the quarterback, this approach wouldn't have worked as well, but if there's only one player running, it's better to make him run laterally than upfield.

Michigan is capable of stopping the triple option which MSU runs, but they have to execute perfectly to do so.  Illinois did score 67 in this game, so it's pretty obvious that for the most part they didn't execute.  However, they had the right approach on both plays, stacking 8 men in the box to help stop the run.  They'll need at least 7 men in the box on almost every play to stop the MSU defense, and I'd look for them to do that, and show this 4-man defensive line more, as they did in this Illinois game against a predominantly running team.

Michigan vs Mississippi State Part Four: Analyzing Mississippi State's Offense vs Kentucky

This post is the fourth of at least five on the upcoming Gator Bowl matchup of Michigan and Mississippi State.  Past posts can be found below:

Michigan's Offense vs. Mississippi State's Defense
Analyzing Auburn's Offense vs Mississippi State's Defense
Michigan's Defense vs Mississippi State's Offense

Now that I've given a decent foundation of Mississippi State's offense, I'd like to take an in-depth look at a few of their staples on offense.


We'll take a look at Mississippi State's WR Sweep option play, a WR Sweep Zone Read, and a QB rollout pass after the jump:

Michigan vs Mississippi State Part Three: Michigan's Defense vs Mississippi State's Offense

This is the third post of the five-part series analyzing the ins and outs of the Gator Bowl on New Year's Day.  To find previous posts, click the following links:

Michigan's Offense vs Mississippi State's Defense
Analyzing Auburn's Offense vs Mississippi State's Defense

Time to move on to the phase of the game I'm dreading, trying to explain how this Michigan defense has any shot in hell of stopping an SEC offense led by a mobile quarterback.

First, we'll talk about Michigan's defense (more like the lack thereof).  The 3-3-5 scheme run by Greg Robinson has been horrifyingly painful to watch this season.  Rich Rodriguez through his indifference to what happens on defense, has allowed Michigan's defense to drop from mediocre in 2008 to the 108th total defense.

After the jump, we'll go into more detail about Michigan's defensive woes and give some background on the Mississippi State Bulldogs offense.

Michigan vs Mississippi State Part Two: Analyzing Mississippi State vs Auburn

This continues the 5-part blog post series on the upcoming Gator Bowl.  Previous posts are listed here: 

Part One: Michigan's Offense vs Mississippi State's Defense


As we learned in the first post, Mississippi State possesses a strong run defense, and is a very resilient bend but don't break defense.  The Bulldogs have a strong defensive line and linebackers that could prove to make things difficult for the Michigan offense.  However, through watching the game tape of Mississippi State's defense against Auburn, there are some holes in their defense that I'll highlight here.

Michigan runs a spread-option offense, mostly consisting of the following plays:

• Zone Read plays, where Denard has the options to either hand it off to the RB, throw a quick WR Screen to an outside receiver, or keep the ball and run it himself.  This makes up the majority of Rich Rod's offensive gameplan when rushing the ball. 
• WR Screens:  As I said with zone reads, often, Denard throws a screen to the outside receiver if there isn't much coverage outside on the receivers and the defense is keying in on the running play.  This helps keep the defense honest and from having 8 defenders in the box every play.  Additionally, it's run as a diagrammed play, and wholly separately from the zone read.
• QB Draws and "QB Power" plays.  I call them QB Power, simply because the team has three or more blockers on the side Denard is running on, usually consisting of an offensive lineman pulling from the opposite side of the play, a runningback, and a wide receiver.  QB Draws generally are run up the middle of the play, while Denard (and Cam Newton in the example in this post) have enough speed to run the "QB Power" outside.

After the jump, with freeze-framed plays, I take you step by step through how Auburn exploited Mississippi State's defense with WR screens and QB draws. 

Michigan vs Mississippi State Part One: Michigan's Offense vs. Mississippi State's Defense

Now that the semester is over, I have enough time to devote to writing a well-informed review of each team and the Gator Bowl matchup.  I'll be writing a multi-part segment, with at least 4 posts, and finally, a game prediction post.

Michigan's Offense:

Denard Robinson was a revelation this season, and the most dynamic dual threat quarterback this side of Cameron Newton, this year's Heisman winner and leader of national championship competitor Auburn.  Should Rich Rodriguez somehow weasel his way into keeping his job for another season, Denard will obviously be the starting quarterback and should improve on the progress he made this year.

To summarize Michigan's offensive performance succinctly and briefly, let's look at a chart I made that details most of the important statistics from each and every Michigan game this season.

*   -  When calculating averages for YPG and PPG allowed, I excluded UMass, as their defense in FBS would pretty easily be the worst we faced this year, and their stats if in FBS would be dramatically different.


Jumping down to the bottom, right away the numbers that catch your eye are Michigan's total yardage, as well as Denard's total yardage.  Michigan averaged 500 yards per game, and was freakishly balanced, going for basically 3,000 yards on the ground and in the air on the season. 

Denard accounted for about 66% of Michigan's offense this year, which honestly seems a bit low, but made him the 3rd most productive offensive player in college football this season.  He completed 62% of his passes this year, and I'd argue it would have been closer to 64% or 65% if not for the numerous drops that Michigan had week in and week out. 

The troubles Michigan suffered in the season's 2nd half can be attributed chiefly to three factors:

1.) The team was far too prone to fumbles and turnovers, and has been throughout Rich Rod's tenure. 

In 2008, the team committed 30 turnovers with the revolting, gag-inducing, nightmare-provoking combination of Nick Sheridan and Steven Threet at the helm, but they also fumbled the ball 38 times in total (losing 18).  2009 brought Tate the Great's September Heisman campaign, and after it, a sudden onset of turnovers, resulting in 28 total over the course of the year, with 29 fumbles (13 lost).   In 2010, our great dreadlocked hope took his Heisman campaign through week five, and then we got into the heart of our Big Ten Schedule, turning the ball over 22 times in our final 7 games.  Over Rodriguez's 3 years, the team has fumbled over 100 times, which is simply unacceptable and means he isn't preaching ball control enough.  Michigan averaged about 12.25 possesions per game, but when 2.25 of those are lost to turnovers every week, that puts the offense under more pressure to convert.  Adding in the 11 turnovers on downs that Michigan surrendered this year, about 26% of Michigan's drives ended in turnovers.  Almost no offense can overcome that, certainly not this Wolverines team with a horrible defense supporting it (if you wish to call it "supporting").


2.) Our kicking game was cringe-worthy to put it lightly.
Secondly, our kicking game was cringe-worthy to put it lightly.  Of the 13 field goals we attempted, only 4 were made (good for 31%, making Ben Wallace's free throw percentage look impressive), and two extra points were shanked.  Had the team converted all extra points as well as 10/13 FGs, the team's scoring average would have risen to 17th in the nation.  While the 20 points may seem minor, you also have to think about the many situations where Michigan was forced to go for it on 4th down, knowing that the kickers would miss the FG attempt.  Michigan was pretty mediocre on 4th downs, converting 12 of 23 attempts (52.18%) which ranked them 62nd overall.

Michigan's red zone scoring rate was 81.13% (70th in the country), meaning that they scored that often when inside the 20-yard-line.  Thanks in large part to the poor field goal kicking, the Wolverines came away ten times in the red zone without any points. 

3.) We couldn't turn yards into points against elite defenses/teams.

While Michigan racked up yards like they were playing a video game, the failure to turn those yards into points against elite teams cost them.  The team did have ten 85+ yard touchdown drives this season (the most in NCAA), but many drives failed to net points or touchdowns. 

Michigan also was one of the best big-play offenses in the country, 3rd in the country with nine plays of 60+ yards, above teams like Arkansas, Auburn, and Oregon.

While the yardage numbers are nice, in the end, it's all about putting points on the board with those yards, and the Wolverines suffered in that department against the best teams.

Against the best four teams we faced (Michigan State, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio State), our offense suffered.  Michigan managed 17 points against Michigan State, scored much of their 28 against an Iowa prevent defense in the fourth quarter, were never competitive with Wisconsin, and utterly collapsed after about 15-20 minutes of competitive football with the Buckeyes.  Michigan's offense averaged 400+ yards in these four games, but only averaged 20 points per game, a disappointing figure for what is called an elite offense by some.

Mississippi State's Defense:

As I did for Michigan's offense, I created a chart for Mississippi State's defensive performance in 2010. 

The main thing to take from this chart is that while Mississippi State is a mediocre defense in terms of total defense (yards allowed), they're in the top 25% of FBS in points allowed.  Their bend, but don't break defense only allowed two teams all year to meet their scoring average, with Arkansas and LSU both barely surpassing their season scoring averages (37.3 and 28.8 respectively), in victories (38-31 in double OT for Arkansas and 29-7 for LSU.)


Their red-zone defense was phenomenal, holding opponents to field goals 33% of the time (14th-most in the nation), only allowing touchdowns 44.4% of the time (11th-best in the nation) and forcing 8 turnovers.  While they may not be the most stout team between the 20's, once they get in the red zone, their poor secondary benefits, as they have less ground to cover and smaller zones to play, allowing their defense to tee off on the quarterback and to send more rushers.


Generating 28 turnovers this season, the defense was very efficient, recovering 16 of 19 fumbles they forced, displaying the alert awareness of their defensive line and linebackers.  They have three potential picks in the first four rounds of the upcoming NFL draft with DE Pernell McPhee, MLB Chris White and OLB K.J. Wright, contributing to their 19th ranked rushing defense. 


Mississippi State looks like the type of team that could give Michigan a lot of trouble, especially when looking at Michigan's poor performance in the red zone and Mississippi State's very impressive defensive performance in the same situation.  Mississippi State is also a solid team against the running game overall, and the 3rd best rushing defense we'll have faced this season. 

However, when looking at the most comparable offense they faced in the next post, we'll see that Michigan is by no means doomed and can exploit some very apparent weaknesses.  I'll highlight the strengths and weaknesses of Mississippi State's defense in the next post, as I analyze their defensive game film from their 2nd game this year against Auburn.

TCU: Busting Into the BCS

Last October, Chris Del Conte left his job as Athletic Director of Rice University to assume the same job at the up-and-coming Texas Christian University.  As Del Conte implied himself, it was improbable to think that within the next two years, TCU could rise up from its “BCS buster” status to a member of a legitimate BCS conference and 2011 Rose Bowl participant.

“Who’d have thought 5 years ago, today, a guaranteed fallback position is you’re going to the Rose Bowl?”, Conte asked rhetorically.

Ten years ago, TCU jumped onto the national scene behind 2^nd overall pick in the 2001 NFL Draft and surefire Hall-of-Famer running back Ladainian Tomlinson.  Since then, the Horned Frogs bandwagon has continued to gain steam.  Following the 2008-09 season, TCU squared off with Boise State in the highly anticipated Poinsettia Bowl matchup, defeating the Broncos 17-16.  The game garnered the highest ratings in Poinsettia Bowl history, and the highest TV ratings for a pre-Christmas bowl game ever. 

The next year, both met again, but in a BCS bowl, marking the first year in the BCS’ existence that two “BCS busters” faced one another in BCS bowls.  The game was once again a fantastic matchup, with Boise emerging victorious by the score of 17-10.  This game set the stage for the 2010 season, when both teams would return nearly their entire offenses.  Both had their eyes set on a national title this season, entering the season ranked third and sixth in the pre-season AP poll respectively. Boise’s surprising loss to Nevada ensured that TCU would play in the Rose Bowl, a first for a non-BCS team.

Entering this season, TCU had flirted with the idea of joining the Big East, but the Big East only wanted TCU for its football program.  However, it looked like the Mountain West Conference, TCU’s current conference, would have a legitimate case to get an automatic-qualifier bid into a BCS game, or even better, be named the 7^th BCS conference.  By 2012, the league would have joined all the potential BCS busters in one league: Utah, BYU, Nevada, Fresno State, Boise State, and of course TCU, making for a difficult schedule to navigate through unscathed.  However, over the past few months, BYU left the MWC to become an Independent team, and Utah accepted an invitation to join the Pac-10, allowing the Utes an opportunity to compete for an automatic BCS bid.  The damage done by the departure of BYU and Utah seemed irreparable and changed the conference’s landscape as Del Conte explained on November 29.

“It’s not the same conference we joined,” said Del Conte.  “And you start to look at who you’re losing, you lose Utah, you lose BYU, and you start to look at the possibilities.

“… I think losing BYU and Utah was a significant load of the conference, it was not the same league that we joined.”

Regardless, Del Conte remained firm in his requirement that the conference took TCU onboard as a full-fledged Big East member, and called the Big East’s bluff.  TCU’s allure was ultimately too much for the Big East to resist, and TCU will join the Big East as a full member starting in the 2012-2013 academic year.  The opportunity to earn an automatic BCS bid that the Big East will offer TCU was also a major factor.

“Having BCS automatic-qualifying status was a priority for our football program and a great reward for the success we've had the last decade,” Del Conte explained.  "This decision today is great for TCU. We're heading into a realm, an arena, that we've always dreamed about. The BCS does not define TCU. TCU defines the BCS.”

As of right now, the marriage of TCU and the Big East conference is a match made in heaven.  While the Big East isn’t exactly thought of as a premier “Big Six” conference, it still has the automatic BCS berth, and TCU should be the leading contender for that bid come 2012.  Additionally, head coach Gary Patterson is much more likely to remain with TCU now that the team has a legitimate chance to play for a national championship. 

“My charge is to make sure that at the end of the day, that we put him [Gary Patterson] in the best position that he can compete for a national championship, because that’s Gary’s quest every single time he steps on the field,” Del Conte said.  “And this gives us the greatest opportunity to compete for a championship.”

The Big East gains access to the Dallas-Fort Worth market, the fifth largest in the United States.  TCU’s football program also should help the Big East keep its automatic BCS bid, which is not assured after the current BCS contract ends, especially considering the conference sent an unranked team to a BCS bowl this year. 

Now though, TCU has nowhere to look but up.  The football program over the past decade has turned around from a middling Conference USA program to a legitimate national championship contender.  Del Conte’s vision for the program and daring resolve has vaulted TCU to new heights as a school and eliminated the “BCS buster” label from their reputation.  And out of everyone involved, he most of all is relieved to finally be desired and not on the outside looking in.

“It’s good to be wanted, I can tell you that much.”