Advertisement
Premium content
PREMIUM CONTENT
Published Sep 7, 2023
Central Michigan vs. Michigan State Film Room: Short yardage and screens
Chase Glasser  •  Spartans Illustrated
Staff Writer

With Michigan State's first game of 2023 — a 31-7 victory against Central Michigan — in the books, it is again time to go back and reexamine the contest, but from a scheme perspective.

Offensively, I thought the game was fairly standard fare for offensive coordinator/quarterbacks coach Jay Johnson. In 2021 I jokingly referred to his offense as an amalgamation of "inside zone, outside zone and shot plays." I was being purposefully reductionist, but the overall sentiment remains true. While I would imagine many are pining to hear that quarterback Noah Kim's deep ball explosion toward the end of the first half was a result of some schematic revolution, it really wasn't.

The touchdown drive at the end of the first half was a result of an extremely well-placed ball on a fade route, and CMU's defensive backs self-destructing when the ball was in the air, showing their athletic limitations. The long catch and run by wide receiver Christian Fitzpatrick was the result of a well-executed out-and-up (mixed with defensive secondary malfeasance). Wide receiver Tyrell Henry's one-handed catch was a tremendous individual effort on a slot fade component of a smash concept (fade inside a hitch), and tight end Maliq Carr's catch was a man-child running a corner route against a sophomore linebacker named Jordan Kwiatkowski from Sterling Heights, Michigan.

Johnson's offense is excellent at creating high-leverage plays, that tend to require superior talent or individual execution to succeed. In that way, many of the notable plays from this game are no different than plays drawn up last year. MSU will need similar individual execution to maintain this level of offensive success. However, MSU was not without plays of schematic interest as well.

In the first play of the game, a near-touchdown scamper for transfer running back Nathan Carter (No. 5), MSU comes out in 12 personnel (one running back, two tight ends, two wide receivers) and runs a run-pass option (RPO) from the tight trio set at the top of the run surface.

Watch Kim (No. 10 at quarterback) look at the edge defender as wide receiver Montorie Foster Jr. (No. 83) runs a pin-down route into the flat as tight ends Evan Morris (No. 92) and Carr (No. 6) block the perimeter. Having two tight ends in the run surface and a route into the flat distorts the linebacker level, opening up the middle of the field. Once Carter breaks an arm tackle from the crashing five-technique, he runs into the gaping hole cleared by left guard J.D. Duplain (No. 67) erasing the one-technique.

In my post-spring game column, I posited the possibility that some of MSU's plays and alignments tipped the possibility that MSU would start incorporating its running backs into the passing game as a linebacker constraint. This isn't something totally foreign to the Jay Johnson offense, though it seems to be more of a focal point this year. In 2021, Kenneth Walker III only had 13 receptions, and in 2022, Jalen Berger had 19 receptions. Against CMU, Berger had a team-high four receptions and Carter added one of his own.

Above, MSU uses Berger (No. 8) on the most simple of backfield routes, a flare route along the line of scrimmage into space. This is a simple read for an inexperienced quarterback: if he's open, throw it! Flaring a running back to the flat distorts the linebacker level, and often forces a linebacker to get in space against an ostensibly shiftier player.

Carter's reception above differs from Berger's in that his was set up as a shallow screen, a screen beyond the line of scrimmage, of the legal pick play/mesh variety.

The linemen release downfield, as is typical of a screen, as is wide receiver Tre Mosely (No. 17) motioning across the formation pre-snap (him running into his own player on the backside of the play was...not planned). However, what sets this play apart is Carr running a fake route, then attempts to pick up the outside linebacker. Carter does the rest in neo-Walkerian fashion.

Looking at this game, I think it is fairly clear that Johnson wanted to run a passing attack with Kim that focused on easy, short passes in the soft spots of zones. However, Kim didn't show a huge proclivity for being able to do that, he was more effective at throwing gorgeous 50/50 balls. However, Johnson did show the ability to scheme up easy completions for Kim.

Facing a third-down-and-short, MSU uses a pres-nap motion by Foster to shift the linebackers' eyes, which was compounded by a fake handoff in the same direction. As Kim rolls out, Mosley runs across the formation into the space cleared out by Carr releasing, and blocking, downfield. Rolling to his right, it's an easy toss from Kim to keep the chains moving.

The elephant in the room, and the question I got the most in my scheme thread, pertained to MSU's struggles on fourth down. In particular, people wanted to know what went wrong, and why MSU continues to run from the shotgun formation on fourth-down-and-short.

Subscribe to read more.
Unlock Premium news from the largest network of experts.
Say your piece in exclusive fan communities.
Dominate with stats, athlete data, Rivals250 rankings, and more.
Go Big. Get Premium.Log In
MichiganState
FOOTBALL
Scores / Schedule
footballfootball
4 - 1
Overall Record
0 - 0
Conference Record
Finished
Michigan St.
83
Arrow
Michigan St.
Samford
75
Samford
Michigan St.
86
Arrow
Michigan St.
Bowling Green
72
Bowling Green
Michigan St.
69
Michigan St.
Kansas
77
Arrow
Kansas
Advertisement