Michigan State offense - Printable Version

Michigan State offense - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Michigan State offense (/thread-6387.html)

Michigan State offense - terry - 12-17-2013

Some statistics regarding Michigan State's offense, with Stanford's stats included for comparison. Numbers in parentheses are the rank among the 123 FBS teams.

Total Offense:
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MSUÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â StanfordÂ
Plays per gameÂ Â Â Â Â Â 71.4 (67th)Â Â Â Â 64.7 (113th)
Yards per gameÂ Â Â Â Â 384.6 (82nd)Â Â Â 413.1 (65th)
Yards per playÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â 5.39 (85th)Â Â Â Â 6.39 (23rd)
Points per gameÂ Â Â Â Â Â 29.8 (61st)Â Â Â Â 33.2 (39th)
3rd down conv. rateÂ Â 45.0% (33rd)Â Â Â 51.1% (8th)

MSU runs an average number of plays at 71.4 per game, just slightly below the FBS median of 71.8. This is not another one of those up-tempo offenses that Stanford has seen so often this year.

MSU's offensive yardage is well below average, whether measured by yards per game or yards per play. In fact, MSU's average of 384.6 yards/game ranks dead last among all Stanford opponents this season.

Stanford gains about 28 yards per game more than MSU. On a per-play basis, Stanford's offense is significantly ahead of MSU's, gaining a full yard per play more (6.39 to 5.39). Stanford's pace and tempo result in a low number of plays, which tends to hold down its yards per game. Stanford's high number of yards per play makes the Stanford offense more effective than its 413 yards per game might suggest.

Michigan State's best offensive stat is 3rd down conversion, which is well above average at 45%. Stanford has an excellent 3rd down conversion rate of 51.1%.

Rushing Offense:
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MSUÂ Â Â Â Â Â Stanford
Rushing Att. per GameÂ Â Â Â 41.1 (45th)Â Â Â 42.2 (32nd)
Pct. Rushing PlaysÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â 58%Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 65%
Rushing Yds per GameÂ Â Â 182.2 (51st)Â Â 210.9 (23rd)
Rushing Yds per AttemptÂ Â Â 4.43 (58th)Â Â Â 5.00 (30th)

Michigan State runs the ball almost 58% of the time. MSU's running game is a little above average. MSU is slightly above the national median in both rushing yards per game and rushing yards per attempt. MSU's workhorse is Jeremy Langford, who has run for 1,338 yards with a 5.0 average. MSU's quarterback, Connor Cook, has not produced much as a runner. Cook has run for 91 yards this year, most of his yardage coming against weakling opponents. In conference games, he had a total of just 17 rushing yards in 9 games (including sacks). He has averaged just 1.4 yards per attempt.

Stanford is a more heavily run-oriented team than MSU. Stanford's running game is in the top 25 or so nationally. Stanford's Tyler Gaffney has run for 1,618 yards with a 5.3 average. Kevin Hogan is more of a running threat than MSU's Cook. Hogan has 314 rushing yards and a 4.1 average.

Passing Offense:
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MSUÂ Â Â Â Â Stanford
Pass Attempts per GameÂ Â Â Â 30.3 (78th)Â Â 22.5 (117th)
Pct. Pass PlaysÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 42%Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 35%
Passing Yards per GameÂ Â Â 202.5 (89th)Â Â 202.2 (90th)
Yards per AttemptÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 6.7 (85th)Â Â Â 9.0 (10th)
Yards per CompletionÂ Â Â Â Â Â 11.6 (78th)Â Â Â 14.6 (12th)
Pass Efficiency RatingÂ Â Â Â Â 128.0 (68th)Â Â 154.3 (17th)

Michigan State and Stanford gain almost exactly the same number of passing yards per game. But Michigan State's passing offense isn't nearly as effective as Stanford's, based on the key metrics of yards per attempt and pass efficiency rating. Michigan State ranks below average in these passing metrics, while Stanford is in the top 20.

Stanford throws the ball downfield more than MSU, which can be seen in the big difference in yards per completion (14.6 vs. 11.6).

MSU's quarterback, Connor Cook, ranks 69th in pass efficiency (133.5), 74th in yards/attempt (7.0), and 56th in QBR (63.2). He takes care of the ball (5 interceptions) and doesn't get sacked much (12 sacks).

Kevin Hogan ranks significantly higher -- 19th in pass efficiency (154.1), 12th in yards per attempt (9.0), and 13th in QBR (80.8 ).

MSU does not have a single statistically dominant receiver. They have three wide receivers (Fowler, Kings, and Lippett) with 34 to 39 receptions, 460 to 525 receiving yards, and per-catch averages in the 12 to 15 yard range. MSU doesn't have any receivers who have put up numbers like Stanford's Montgomery (58 catches, 10 TDs), Cajuste (21.9 yards/catch), or Rector (32.2 yards/catch).

Conclusion:

Michigan State has an average offense from a statistical standpoint. They are slightly above average running the ball, and below average in passing. They are run-oriented (though not to the same extent as Stanford). Stanford has played a number of offenses that are stronger and more productive than MSU's offense.

Statistically, Stanford's offense is significantly better than MSU's offense. Stanford runs the ball better and passes the ball more effectively. In comparing the two offenses, the advantage goes to Stanford.

Of course, MSU's offense is not the strength of the team. I will get to the defense later.

Re: Michigan State offense - washingtonismoney - 12-17-2013

Great breakdown. Want to add a couple more notes.

Stanford is overall more explosive. 7.6% of Stanford plays go for 20 or more yards compared to 5.81% of MSU's. That's driven by Stanford's aggro passing game -- 14% of passing plays (not including sacks) go that yardage, which makes Stanford 2013 the most explosive passing offense since 2010 (12.66%). (MSU's passing game only produces explosive plays 8.6% of the time, which is quite poor.) 4.3% of Stanford runs go for 20+; 3.75% of MSU runs do the same.

The surprising relative weakness may come in sacks allowed. Stanford got sacked on 3.81% of dropbacks; MSU, on 3.2%. Part of this is Stanford's famous road weaknesses -- Hogan suffered 10 of the team's 15 sacks away from Stanford Stadium.

Re: Michigan State offense - Bruce Wang - 12-17-2013

I'll chime in with what I saw during the B1G championship game.Â Michigan State got bailed out by a lot of penalties.Â Our boys are much more disciplined than Ohio State.

Re: Michigan State offense - Gauss - 12-17-2013

An important disclaimer on the MSU stats is that they average their lackluster offense of early season (294 yards Vs Purdue) with the quite decent one at the end (438 yards against Ohio St).

Re: Michigan State offense - terry - 12-17-2013

(12-17-2013, 09:17 PM)Gauss link Wrote:An important disclaimer on the MSU stats is that they average their lackluster offense of early season (294 yards Vs Purdue) with the quite decent one at the end (438 yards against Ohio St).

Like Stanford, Michigan State had its ups and downs on offense during the season, with the latter part of the season generally being better. Yes, it's true that MSU gained 438 yards against Ohio State in the conference championship game. But a week earlier, MSU gained just 324 yards and scored just 14 points against Minnesota. Those last two games average out to 381 yards per game -- almost exactly MSU's overall season average.

Stanford averaged 468 yards of offense in its last two games.

Re: Michigan State offense - terry - 12-18-2013

(12-17-2013, 08:40 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Great breakdown. Want to add a couple more notes.

Stanford is overall more explosive. 7.6% of Stanford plays go for 20 or more yards compared to 5.81% of MSU's. That's driven by Stanford's aggro passing game -- 14% of passing plays (not including sacks) go that yardage, which makes Stanford 2013 the most explosive passing offense since 2010 (12.66%). (MSU's passing game only produces explosive plays 8.6% of the time, which is quite poor.) 4.3% of Stanford runs go for 20+; 3.75% of MSU runs do the same.

The surprising relative weakness may come in sacks allowed. Stanford got sacked on 3.81% of dropbacks; MSU, on 3.2%. Part of this is Stanford's famous road weaknesses -- Hogan suffered 10 of the team's 15 sacks away from Stanford Stadium.

Good additions. This year, Stanford added the big-play dimension that was absent last year. By the end of the season, we really were using a lot of different offensive weapons. It's nice to have some options.