12-24-2013, 08:44 AM
There's been a lot of woofing. We could be due.
A yard better per carry?
MSUFAN4320
Unregistered
Unregistered
12-24-2013, 10:56 AM
Great thread. You guys bring refreshing perspective and thoughtful analysis to your takes. I'm not used to that, dealing with Ohio State fans, Michigan fans, etc. haha
I would say MSU has a good running back but an average overall running game. We tend to have low rushing totals because the OC strives for a balanced attack, and also because we don't have a running QB to help "inflate" those totals (for lack of a better word), like a lot of teams do. But frankly, I'm fine with that. I want my qb throwing, not tucking and running. We'll occasionally use a WR on a jet sweep or some other play out of the backfield with a speedster, but for the most part, it's ground and pound with Jeremy Langford.
Personally, I don't think we'll have much success on the ground against Stanford. I would be thrilled with 90-100 yards from Langford. Our running game tends to start slow, and we wear people down over the course of the game, and late in the 3rd and 4th quarter is where Langford gets his biggest runs. Against your front 7, I don't see that happening. I think for MSU to win, it's going to come down to Connor Cook's arm.Â
I would say MSU has a good running back but an average overall running game. We tend to have low rushing totals because the OC strives for a balanced attack, and also because we don't have a running QB to help "inflate" those totals (for lack of a better word), like a lot of teams do. But frankly, I'm fine with that. I want my qb throwing, not tucking and running. We'll occasionally use a WR on a jet sweep or some other play out of the backfield with a speedster, but for the most part, it's ground and pound with Jeremy Langford.
Personally, I don't think we'll have much success on the ground against Stanford. I would be thrilled with 90-100 yards from Langford. Our running game tends to start slow, and we wear people down over the course of the game, and late in the 3rd and 4th quarter is where Langford gets his biggest runs. Against your front 7, I don't see that happening. I think for MSU to win, it's going to come down to Connor Cook's arm.Â
Great thread. You guys bring refreshing perspective and thoughtful analysis to your takes. I'm not used to that, dealing with Ohio State fans, Michigan fans, etc. haha
I would say MSU has a good running back but an average overall running game. We tend to have low rushing totals because the OC strives for a balanced attack, and also because we don't have a running QB to help "inflate" those totals (for lack of a better word), like a lot of teams do. But frankly, I'm fine with that. I want my qb throwing, not tucking and running. We'll occasionally use a WR on a jet sweep or some other play out of the backfield with a speedster, but for the most part, it's ground and pound with Jeremy Langford.
Personally, I don't think we'll have much success on the ground against Stanford. I would be thrilled with 90-100 yards from Langford. Our running game tends to start slow, and we wear people down over the course of the game, and late in the 3rd and 4th quarter is where Langford gets his biggest runs. Against your front 7, I don't see that happening. I think for MSU to win, it's going to come down to Connor Cook's arm.Â
I would say MSU has a good running back but an average overall running game. We tend to have low rushing totals because the OC strives for a balanced attack, and also because we don't have a running QB to help "inflate" those totals (for lack of a better word), like a lot of teams do. But frankly, I'm fine with that. I want my qb throwing, not tucking and running. We'll occasionally use a WR on a jet sweep or some other play out of the backfield with a speedster, but for the most part, it's ground and pound with Jeremy Langford.
Personally, I don't think we'll have much success on the ground against Stanford. I would be thrilled with 90-100 yards from Langford. Our running game tends to start slow, and we wear people down over the course of the game, and late in the 3rd and 4th quarter is where Langford gets his biggest runs. Against your front 7, I don't see that happening. I think for MSU to win, it's going to come down to Connor Cook's arm.Â
12-24-2013, 10:58 AM
I'm feeling uncomfortably comfortable about this game. Last time I felt this way was before the SC game :(
12-24-2013, 11:13 AM
(12-21-2013, 02:16 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:I think Stanford has a slight edge in all three phases of the game...but I won't discount what a month of focused preparation can do for a team practicing with a chip on its collective shoulder. It should be a slugfest.
Which team has the chip?
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(12-21-2013, 02:16 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:I think Stanford has a slight edge in all three phases of the game...but I won't discount what a month of focused preparation can do for a team practicing with a chip on its collective shoulder. It should be a slugfest.
Which team has the chip?
Audaces fortuna iuvat
12-24-2013, 12:52 PM
(12-24-2013, 10:58 AM)somnambule link Wrote:I'm feeling uncomfortably comfortable about this game. Last time I felt this way was before the SC game :(
I too was optimistic before the SC game, but we were right to be optimistic. Despite the 90,000 screaming maniacs, an opponent way beyond just pumped up and the initial disruptions all that caused, we put ourselves in a good position to win in the 4Q. The defense shut SC down almost the whole second half. On our best drive, starting from about our 30, Gaffney ran to the SC 6, first and goal -- and we got no points (int). Murphy later sacked the SC QB, who fumbled, Skov recovered at the 20 ---and again we got no points (blocked FG). Late in the game SC converted a crucial 4th and 2. If we had gotten one TD (very likely) or two FGs (same) in those possessions we probably win. Our chances of getting 10-14 points were good. If we stop the 4th and 2, we get the ball back and have a good chance to win. The odds that all three outcomes would turn out as bad as they did -- which is what I think it took to beat us -- were quite low.
I believe in this team because they put themselves in good position to win close games. This game will probably be close because MSU has a good defense vs. the run. If we can pass on them, we will win handily, but they seem to have very athletic DBs who may be able to stay on our WRs. I'm hoping we see Ty, Cajuste and Rector getting behind the MSU DBs. If they do, those $2,000 tickets aren't going to look so good any more.
(12-24-2013, 10:58 AM)somnambule link Wrote:I'm feeling uncomfortably comfortable about this game. Last time I felt this way was before the SC game :(
I too was optimistic before the SC game, but we were right to be optimistic. Despite the 90,000 screaming maniacs, an opponent way beyond just pumped up and the initial disruptions all that caused, we put ourselves in a good position to win in the 4Q. The defense shut SC down almost the whole second half. On our best drive, starting from about our 30, Gaffney ran to the SC 6, first and goal -- and we got no points (int). Murphy later sacked the SC QB, who fumbled, Skov recovered at the 20 ---and again we got no points (blocked FG). Late in the game SC converted a crucial 4th and 2. If we had gotten one TD (very likely) or two FGs (same) in those possessions we probably win. Our chances of getting 10-14 points were good. If we stop the 4th and 2, we get the ball back and have a good chance to win. The odds that all three outcomes would turn out as bad as they did -- which is what I think it took to beat us -- were quite low.
I believe in this team because they put themselves in good position to win close games. This game will probably be close because MSU has a good defense vs. the run. If we can pass on them, we will win handily, but they seem to have very athletic DBs who may be able to stay on our WRs. I'm hoping we see Ty, Cajuste and Rector getting behind the MSU DBs. If they do, those $2,000 tickets aren't going to look so good any more.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »