-
SpartanRocky said...
One minor correction; France was a RS Soph last year (2009 class).
To Tanfan: There is no guarantee that MSU will have a better running game next year. Here are the reasons they may have a better running game, and the reasons they may not. Quite frankly, it's up in the air:
Reasons the Running Game may improve:
1. 4 Returning offensive line starters, and another 2 who started the first 3 games last year. The key here is the youth/inexperience on last year's line; it's reasonable to expect that 1st year starters are not at their ceilings, and young 1st year starters are on the lowest part of the learning curve. With 2 converted DTs (France/Treadwell), a JUCO (Fonoti) and 2 RS FR (Burkland and Jackson), 5 of the top 7 OL last year consisted of players in their first year playing BCS conf. football on the OL. In short, what we saw last year was most certainly not their ceiling, and with all of them back, the OL play should improve.
2. Le'Veon Bell will be getting more carries. We all agree that the OL run-blocking was bad last year. Despite that, Bell still averaged 5.2 YPC last year with 187 carries (i.e., he didn't just have a couple of big runs to inflate his YPC stats vs. a low # of carries, and he faced some good run Ds). As a true Soph, he hasn't hit his physical peak yet. In short, he could improve on 5.2 YPC AND be getting more carries.
3. MSU may have a change of pace RB that actually can change the pace. The biggest hole in MSU's running game last year was the lack of the long run. The longest run last year was a 35 yard jaunt by Bell; Baker didn't have one of his 50+ yard home-runs at all last year (longest run was 25 yards). That played a large role in his YPC dropping from 5.9 to 3.9 YPC. What did that mean for MSU's rush o?
He (Baker) had 170 carries last year. If he hits his 2010 YPC average, MSU gains 340 extra yards on the ground for the season. That would have given MSU 2271 total rushing yards on the year, or 162.21 yards/game rushing. That's 25 YPG better than MSU's 137.93 average (78th), enough to move MSU up 26 spots (52nd) nationally. It also moves the team YPC up from 3.95 to 4.64. For reference, MSU averaged 152 YPG on the ground in 2010.
Hill may not get 170 carries next year, but I've seen enough burst from him to think that he can rip off a couple of long runs to give MSU a nice threat of a speed back.
Reasons MSU's Run-D May NOT Improve:
1) The passing game is a question-mark. By rights, the threat of Cunningham, Cousins and Martin should have made things as easy as possible for the RBs last year. Despite the presence of that passing threat, MSU's running game was stuck in neutral for most of the year. D's are going to key on the running game until Maxwell shows that he can hurt opponents through the air. There's no telling when that'll happen next year, and even more scary, there's not guarantee that it'll happen at all.
2) Potential remains potential till it's proven on the field. Yes, I don't believe the returning OL (aside from McDonald) have reached their ceilings . . . but I do not know what that ceiling is. It could be only a 2-3% improvement over what they showed last year. It could be a 50% or greater improvement. I just don't know; no one does. There is a possibility that the OL improves, but the improvements are minimal; given #1 in this category, the rushing O could even take a step backwards.
3) This is another potential thing; yea, Hill has shown flashes, but they've been in the spring game. Until he rips off a 56 yard TD against ND or something, it remains potential. Also, if a team doesn't have a running QB, the only way the rushing O is going to be potent is if there are 2 RBs who can carry the load. Bell's back-ups are Caper, who has spent most of his career injured, and Hill, a guy who has pretty much stayed on special teams in his career. In short Bell is the only proven RB on the roster, and if a #2 doesn't emerge, MSU's running game is not going to be good.
-
SpartanRocky said...
One minor correction; France was a RS Soph last year (2009 class).
To Tanfan: There is no guarantee that MSU will have a better running game next year. Here are the reasons they may have a better running game, and the reasons they may not. Quite frankly, it's up in the air:
Reasons the Running Game may improve:
1. 4 Returning offensive line starters, and another 2 who started the first 3 games last year. The key here is the youth/inexperience on last year's line; it's reasonable to expect that 1st year starters are not at their ceilings, and young 1st year starters are on the lowest part of the learning curve. With 2 converted DTs (France/Treadwell), a JUCO (Fonoti) and 2 RS FR (Burkland and Jackson), 5 of the top 7 OL last year consisted of players in their first year playing BCS conf. football on the OL. In short, what we saw last year was most certainly not their ceiling, and with all of them back, the OL play should improve.
2. Le'Veon Bell will be getting more carries. We all agree that the OL run-blocking was bad last year. Despite that, Bell still averaged 5.2 YPC last year with 187 carries (i.e., he didn't just have a couple of big runs to inflate his YPC stats vs. a low # of carries, and he faced some good run Ds). As a true Soph, he hasn't hit his physical peak yet. In short, he could improve on 5.2 YPC AND be getting more carries.
3. MSU may have a change of pace RB that actually can change the pace. The biggest hole in MSU's running game last year was the lack of the long run. The longest run last year was a 35 yard jaunt by Bell; Baker didn't have one of his 50+ yard home-runs at all last year (longest run was 25 yards). That played a large role in his YPC dropping from 5.9 to 3.9 YPC. What did that mean for MSU's rush o?
He (Baker) had 170 carries last year. If he hits his 2010 YPC average, MSU gains 340 extra yards on the ground for the season. That would have given MSU 2271 total rushing yards on the year, or 162.21 yards/game rushing. That's 25 YPG better than MSU's 137.93 average (78th), enough to move MSU up 26 spots (52nd) nationally. It also moves the team YPC up from 3.95 to 4.64. For reference, MSU averaged 152 YPG on the ground in 2010.
Hill may not get 170 carries next year, but I've seen enough burst from him to think that he can rip off a couple of long runs to give MSU a nice threat of a speed back.
Reasons MSU's Run-D May NOT Improve:
1) The passing game is a question-mark. By rights, the threat of Cunningham, Cousins and Martin should have made things as easy as possible for the RBs last year. Despite the presence of that passing threat, MSU's running game was stuck in neutral for most of the year. D's are going to key on the running game until Maxwell shows that he can hurt opponents through the air. There's no telling when that'll happen next year, and even more scary, there's not guarantee that it'll happen at all.
2) Potential remains potential till it's proven on the field. Yes, I don't believe the returning OL (aside from McDonald) have reached their ceilings . . . but I do not know what that ceiling is. It could be only a 2-3% improvement over what they showed last year. It could be a 50% or greater improvement. I just don't know; no one does. There is a possibility that the OL improves, but the improvements are minimal; given #1 in this category, the rushing O could even take a step backwards.
3) This is another potential thing; yea, Hill has shown flashes, but they've been in the spring game. Until he rips off a 56 yard TD against ND or something, it remains potential. Also, if a team doesn't have a running QB, the only way the rushing O is going to be potent is if there are 2 RBs who can carry the load. Bell's back-ups are Caper, who has spent most of his career injured, and Hill, a guy who has pretty much stayed on special teams in his career. In short Bell is the only proven RB on the roster, and if a #2 doesn't emerge, MSU's running game is not going to be good.
MiamiSpartan
- 5 stars Rating: 94
2247 votes total - (3506)
- 21 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
MiamiSpartan said...
Are you that confident in our FB and TE situation, or do you not think they're important to the run game? That's 2-3 interior blockers, and may be our two weakest (or at least unknown) positions on the entire team.
There's only so much I can write in one post
.
Yea, FB/TE makes a difference, and it's telling that MD took a JUCO TE who specializes in blocking.
I'm cautiously optimistic about the FB play; in the first 5 seasons, MD has used converted LBs/DEs as FBs, and Palazeti represents the first "true" FB on the roster.
Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.
SpartanRocky
- 5 stars Rating: 90
16652 votes total - Andrew Bell
- (22258)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
SpartanRocky said...
There's only so much I can write in one post
.
Yea, FB/TE makes a difference, and it's telling that MD took a JUCO TE who specializes in blocking.
I'm cautiously optimistic about the FB play; in the first 5 seasons, MD has used converted LBs/DEs as FBs, and Palazeti represents the first "true" FB on the roster.
Συν ται η επι ται! Syn tai e epi tai! Ή ταν ή επί τας! E tan i epi tas!
-
SpartanRocky said...
There's only so much I can write in one post
.
Yea, FB/TE makes a difference, and it's telling that MD took a JUCO TE who specializes in blocking.
I'm cautiously optimistic about the FB play; in the first 5 seasons, MD has used converted LBs/DEs as FBs, and Palazeti represents the first "true" FB on the roster.
Since when have you let a long post stand in your way?
Like I said, they're at least the most unknown, positions. Most unknown because at WR we at least have a slew if highly rated guys. It's a lot to expect a juco to pick up D1 ball right away (yes it does happen, though), and to be enough of a pass threat so that his very presence doesn't scream "running play".
And Palazetti can do whatever in practice, but as a FB can he go full blast into a violent, angry collision with a big mean LB 30 times per game? It's a position that's very much about what's inside the player, and its hard to recreate the intensity needed in those collisions in a practice/scrimmage.
It's just interesting how much people in this thread discount these positions when talking about the run game.
MiamiSpartan
- 5 stars Rating: 94
2247 votes total - (3506)
- 21 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
WBill19542
- 5 stars Rating: 96
14202 votes total - (16638)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
MiamiSpartan said...
Since when have you let a long post stand in your way?
Like I said, they're at least the most unknown, positions. Most unknown because at WR we at least have a slew if highly rated guys. It's a lot to expect a juco to pick up D1 ball right away (yes it does happen, though), and to be enough of a pass threat so that his very presence doesn't scream "running play".
And Palazetti can do whatever in practice, but as a FB can he go full blast into a violent, angry collision with a big mean LB 30 times per game? It's a position that's very much about what's inside the player, and its hard to recreate the intensity needed in those collisions in a practice/scrimmage.
It's just interesting how much people in this thread discount these positions when talking about the run game.
-
SpartanRocky said...
One minor correction; France was a RS Soph last year (2009 class).
To Tanfan: There is no guarantee that MSU will have a better running game next year. Here are the reasons they may have a better running game, and the reasons they may not. Quite frankly, it's up in the air:
Reasons the Running Game may improve:
1. 4 Returning offensive line starters, and another 2 who started the first 3 games last year. The key here is the youth/inexperience on last year's line; it's reasonable to expect that 1st year starters are not at their ceilings, and young 1st year starters are on the lowest part of the learning curve. With 2 converted DTs (France/Treadwell), a JUCO (Fonoti) and 2 RS FR (Burkland and Jackson), 5 of the top 7 OL last year consisted of players in their first year playing BCS conf. football on the OL. In short, what we saw last year was most certainly not their ceiling, and with all of them back, the OL play should improve.
2. Le'Veon Bell will be getting more carries. We all agree that the OL run-blocking was bad last year. Despite that, Bell still averaged 5.2 YPC last year with 187 carries (i.e., he didn't just have a couple of big runs to inflate his YPC stats vs. a low # of carries, and he faced some good run Ds). As a true Soph, he hasn't hit his physical peak yet. In short, he could improve on 5.2 YPC AND be getting more carries.
3. MSU may have a change of pace RB that actually can change the pace. The biggest hole in MSU's running game last year was the lack of the long run. The longest run last year was a 35 yard jaunt by Bell; Baker didn't have one of his 50+ yard home-runs at all last year (longest run was 25 yards). That played a large role in his YPC dropping from 5.9 to 3.9 YPC. What did that mean for MSU's rush o?
He (Baker) had 170 carries last year. If he hits his 2010 YPC average, MSU gains 340 extra yards on the ground for the season. That would have given MSU 2271 total rushing yards on the year, or 162.21 yards/game rushing. That's 25 YPG better than MSU's 137.93 average (78th), enough to move MSU up 26 spots (52nd) nationally. It also moves the team YPC up from 3.95 to 4.64. For reference, MSU averaged 152 YPG on the ground in 2010.
Hill may not get 170 carries next year, but I've seen enough burst from him to think that he can rip off a couple of long runs to give MSU a nice threat of a speed back.
Reasons MSU's Run-D May NOT Improve:
1) The passing game is a question-mark. By rights, the threat of Cunningham, Cousins and Martin should have made things as easy as possible for the RBs last year. Despite the presence of that passing threat, MSU's running game was stuck in neutral for most of the year. D's are going to key on the running game until Maxwell shows that he can hurt opponents through the air. There's no telling when that'll happen next year, and even more scary, there's not guarantee that it'll happen at all.
2) Potential remains potential till it's proven on the field. Yes, I don't believe the returning OL (aside from McDonald) have reached their ceilings . . . but I do not know what that ceiling is. It could be only a 2-3% improvement over what they showed last year. It could be a 50% or greater improvement. I just don't know; no one does. There is a possibility that the OL improves, but the improvements are minimal; given #1 in this category, the rushing O could even take a step backwards.
3) This is another potential thing; yea, Hill has shown flashes, but they've been in the spring game. Until he rips off a 56 yard TD against ND or something, it remains potential. Also, if a team doesn't have a running QB, the only way the rushing O is going to be potent is if there are 2 RBs who can carry the load. Bell's back-ups are Caper, who has spent most of his career injured, and Hill, a guy who has pretty much stayed on special teams in his career. In short Bell is the only proven RB on the roster, and if a #2 doesn't emerge, MSU's running game is not going to be good.
Dicks Fake Eye20793
- 4 stars Rating: 79
2006 votes total - (2524)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
Dick's Fake Eye said...
Nice post, agree with your "improve" list. To add to your "NOT improve" list:
Roushar - you mention Maxwell, Hill, and WR's on the "unproven" list. I'm still not convinced in Roushar. His body of work is a mixed bag. MSU is very fortunate to have an excellent defense, because they've needed it. I think Roushar is predictable, and doesn't take advantage of opportunities. I still recall the Nebraska game. Urban Meyer is baffled that Roushar won't attack the middle of the field, which was empty of Nebraska defenders.
Still, barring injuries, I think MSU's rush attack gets better.
Keeping the sunshiners in check since 2000.
-
Tanfan said...
Both you and Rocky provided nice level headed responses to the question. Well done
You like the post that expresses little faith in the OC. Why does that surprise me from the guy who wanted Treadwell and Narduzzi broomed after their first respective three and out and first down surrendered.
"Losing Benenoch is a mortal blow from which this program can't recover"-T-Pain
Rogue Leader
- 5 stars Rating: 84
12596 votes total - (9472)
- 28 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
Dendrobates ●
- 3 stars Rating: 57
4769 votes total - The Attention Whore
- (7721)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Green Tonic21351
- 5 stars Rating: 91
384 votes total - (481)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
Green & Tonic said...
We're going to see A LOT of 8-9 men in the box to start the year, until Maxwell and the young receivers find their groove. Running the ball will be very difficult, even though we'll have our best RB since TJ and deepest, most experienced O-line in quite some time. I'm much more worried about how our passing game will help keep defenses honest than the play of the OL or RBs. Having said that, play action could be lethal if Arnett, Sims, Fowler and Co. play towards their ceilings.
"RCMB: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainry." - some dude from MgoBlog
- Post a New Topic
- Back to Topics
- « Previous Topic
- Next Topic »
- Boards ▾
- Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 8
Tell me why our running game will improve?