A tale of two Bret(t)s
Posted by kj on Sunday, November 2nd, 2008
I only returned from frolicking on the beach in time to watch the second half of Saturday’s game. So I can’t comment in an informed manner about the entirety of the game. But the box score tells a bizarre story in terms of finding the statistical pieces of a Spartan victory:
- We were outrushed by 223 yards on a day our star player was battling some sort of virus.
- Brian Hoyer completed just 43.1% of his pass attempts, while getting sacked three times.
- Turnovers were even (and negative for MSU if you consider the botched fake punt to essentially be a turnover).
- MSU’s return game didn’t do anything of a game-changing nature.
What statistical indicators are left to offset all that?
- 12 penalties called on the Badgers for 121 yards vs. just 2 for 30 yards called on MSU. (Note: 3 of the Badger penalties were for pass interference for a total of 41 yards. And replays pretty clearly showed another intereference penalty was warranted on the final drive when a Badger defender impeded Deon Curry’s pass route.)
- Mr. Brett Swenson: 4-4 on field goal attempts, including two of the clutchest* field goal makes you’ll ever see: attempts of 50 and 44 yards that were right down the middle with plenty of distance to spare.
*The Wordpress spellchecker doesn’t like “clutchest.” But I don’t care.
Turning to the other Bret who played a key role in this game, I’m not sure I’d be as charitable toward Bret Bielema as our friend Scott at Badgercentric is being were I a Wisconsin fan. Witness:
- Burning a replay challenge and timeout on a punt touchback everyone could see was the right call on the first replay that was shown.
- Costing his team 15 yards on an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty to put MSU at midfield to start the drive on which they pulled within 5 points.
- The questionable timeout call to allow MSU to set up the final field goal attempt with a full play clock.
None of those things individually led to Wisconsin’s defeat, but they collectively created a sense that the Badgers lacked composure in defending their lead. A John L. Smith award may be in the offing.
In the end, MSU pulled out a game they were fundamentally outplayed in. College football is a game where every win and loss matters, regardless of how it was achieved. So an 8-2 record in a rebuilding a year works for me, even if it’s the function of a team playing well above its head. For once, we’re the team that kept its wits about it in the waning moments of a tight game.
As a result, New Year’s Day beckons.
Finally, I hate to end this post by dredging up painful memories, but Scott at Badgercentric does draw an intersting analogy:
In a way, this was very similar to our win over Michigan State in the Big Ten Tournament. State for the most part outplayed us in that game but foul trouble on their bigs, which their fans would pin on refereeing, let us creep back in, and Flowers’ steal stole the game for us late. This was the football equivalent of that, only with us on the losing end. Payback’s a bitch … but I’m glad we got that win.
And we’re glad we got this one.
Filed in game recap10 responses so far
10 Responses to “A tale of two Bret(t)s”
Benon 02 Nov 2008 at 11:52 pm 1“Bizarre” is right. I had a bad, bad, bad feeling about this game from the moment I walked into the stadium. I got inside 20 minutes before kickoff, and the stadium was barely a third full; by the time the band came on, it was only about half. The student section never totally filled up; the atmosphere was better during the EMU game than it was on Saturday, up until the last minute and a half. What the hell?
Our rush defense absolutely sucked; our defensive line was dominated even more handily than during the Iowa game. Clay and Hill looked like they were running in slow motion all day long — all they had to do was be patient and wait for the holes in the line to open, because they always did. Much, much, much too easy. Our pass defense was pretty sharp, as it has been in all of our other wins, although the fact that Wisconsin had a fairly new quarterback and was missing their best receiver had something to do with it, I’m sure. Either way, on the few occasions that we were able to force Wisconsin into passing downs, our defense held — particularly in the fourth quarter, of course. Not a whole lot to say about the offense which hasn’t already been said: Ringer was meh, the receivers (save White) were generally awful, and the offensive line lost most of the important battles.
And yet, we won. (Thanks Brett, and thanks, Bret.) When was the last time anyone can remember us winning a game that we had absolutely no business winning, against a halfway-decent opponent? It’s been a long, long time. Phenomenal job by the coaching staff to keep the heads up on our sideline, and to make the right decisions to take advantage of the gifts Wisconsin was giving us. In the past, we wouldn’t have accepted the offer. Winning ugly is often the sign of good teams. I don’t think we’re a great team yet, but I think Saturday did a lot to help us get there, both for this year and in the future.
Re: Bielema. Absolute coaching malpractice, as far as I’m concerned. The penalties were, and are, inexcusable. And the timeout on the field goal attempt was an absolute joke. I guess Wisconsin had only ten guys on the field; even so, I think the chances of Swenson missing as a result of being hurried were significantly higher than the chances of Wisconsin blocking the kick by bringing on the extra guy. But even better, why wouldn’t you take the timeout as soon as MSU was stopped on third down? Even if Swenson makes the kick, we’d be kicking off with about 30 seconds to play, and Wisconsin would have at least 2 plays (with the timeout in hand) to try to get in position for a game-winning FG try. Awful. Far too early for Wisconsin fans to be calling for Bielema’s head, but there’s no excuse for them losing this game . . . or the game against Michigan, for that matter.
As for me, saw a great win, saw the band’s most entertaining halftime show in years (!), got dinner at Ukai, and back in Chicago by 10pm. Not a bad little Saturday . . . can’t wait for next weekend.
Benon 02 Nov 2008 at 11:57 pm 2And one other thing — congrats to the mens’ soccer team, who won the Big Ten championship today — the first in MSU history.
http://msuspartans.cstv.com/sp.....08aae.html
witless chumon 03 Nov 2008 at 11:23 am 3So, Badgercentric’s point is, basically: “Just wait ’til basketball season!” And yes, we all know Christmas is never safe when you play the Badgers.
But, interestingly enough, I’m not quite ready to talk about basketball season in November and that is good.
Swenson is the clutchyiest of clutch clutchest, indeed. I think he would have made the kick one way or the other. (And how nice to see a coaching staff that had the mayday field goal team ready to run out there with all 11 guys and everything.)
I think there was something to all the pregame talk about MSU being hungover from the two previous games, but I’ll second Ben above loudly. This is the kind of game MSU hasn’t won since, when?
The recievers were just worrisome with the drops. Some guys have dropping problems that just never go away, like Matt Trannon. I hope Cunningham and D. Rucker aren’t those guys. I’ll have to check back to the preseason previews and read all about how Blair White was going to emerge as the most dependable recieving threat.
And not to be cross, if Ringer is flu-battered, maybe it’s time to give Anderson/Leggett/Jimmerson more work? Can sick, undernourished Ringer really be better than healthy other guys?
Rewertson 03 Nov 2008 at 1:37 pm 4The answer to the question about Ringer is an emphatic yes. And that has nothing to do with the other guys, Ringer is just simply that good. I’m sure he was affected out there, but our line got dominated the entire game, which I think had a lot more to do with the 53 yards than the illness. Ringer just has that knack to pick up a 4 yard gain when he clearly should be stopped for a loss. He sees a tiny seem and weaves through it for a few yards, I don’t think the other running backs have that same ability yet.
However, it sure did seem like a pretty good chance to see if one of those guys could break one.
Another interesting note, where was Glenn Winston? He hasn’t played in the last 2 games after looking great on kickoffs in his first action back there (I think @NW). Did he sustain an injury?
Moothekowon 03 Nov 2008 at 3:07 pm 5I figured Glenn Winston was part of the football incident (right beside Cousins
. Don’t have any fact to back that up – just that he’s been out since the incident and they haven’t given any information about why (no injuries, etc).
Also – our I was pretty disappointed in the receivers (save White). I thought after the Cal game our receivers were going to be a significant strength of this team – but they’ve seemed to struggle with drops a lot so far this year. I too hope that it isn’t one of those things that some of the guys just never get over. The drop Cunningham had in the end zone was very frustrating to watch – looked like he was so anxious to turn and run that he forgot to secure the ball first.
Benon 03 Nov 2008 at 3:16 pm 6Moothekow — a big part of the problem with the WR corps has been Mark Dell’s continuing injury. Supposedly he’ll be back next week, and that’ll help out in a big way. We’ve been at a big disadvantage in that we haven’t had a bye week yet; obviously, that would have helped Dell and Ringer, among others, in a big way.
Just think of how dire the situation would have been without Blair White. He’s been a revelation.
DP99on 03 Nov 2008 at 6:24 pm 7About two months ago I asked in this space if someone with better football knowledge than me could provide some insight into whether some of Hoyer’s problems could be attributed to the inexperienced or ine-talented WRs. I think after the last few weeks, and Saturday’s ridiculous amount of drops, that the answer is “OHMYGODYES!!!”
It now seems clear to me that the Javon-heavy offense this season was not to protect Hoyer, but to stay away from the receivers (at least compared to the production Ringer could get). We all saw Dell’s performance at Cal and thought we saw the second coming of Devin Thomas. We saw BJ Cunningham’s size and thought we were in for a treat. That suddenly erased one of the big concerns prior to the season, that the WR crew would not be very good. That concern has been shown to be true. It wasn’t just this past game where we’ve noted multiple drops. The current state of the WR depth chart (sophomore, freshman, former walk-on junior (bless your soul, Whitey), former walk-on senior, freshman, freshman, freshman red-shirting) is a serious problem for the offense, not Hoyer. This win was on Hoyer, and oh my god was it so. Imagine knowing your limited tools, knowing your limited chances, getting little help on the ground, a crowd that may or may not turn on you, and your receivers plainly dropping on the few chances you do get. Time and time again. Also imagine staying poised, disciplined not force to compensate for the limited and wasted chances, and coming back to it with the game on your shoulders to try again. Time and time again. He will never be Graham Harrell, and he will always be in danger for head-scratching mistakes. But in another time with another set of WRs he could have been Billy Burke with a stronger arm. To all the Hoyer haters: good bye, stay away, and don’t bother us anymore.
Maybe next year the situation will improve, but it seems clear to me that the other aspect of the Ringer offense is the outrageous drop between him and the next RB. In the Michigan game, Ringer came out for ONE play because he had lost a shoe. In the very next snap Anderson gained 2 yards and fumbled. I know that is an extreme example, but it sums up the overall situation for me.
My first thought when I saw the penalty stats on Wisonsin after the game was “Good! It should have been more!” There were plenty more uncalled pass interference, so whatever their gripe is with the refs, I think it was a net positive for them.
Anyway, sweet game to watch because of the outcome. Somewhat ugly, somewhat inexplicable, but actually not unlike several other wins in the last season and five-sixths. I don’t know what the mood was at the stadium, but it seemed like a pretty excited crowd to me via ESPN2 (thank you Big Ten and your awesome TV contract, where I’ve seen 9 of 10 MSU games so far in the west coast within the reaches of basic cable). Didn’t seem like the paranoid self-fulfilling “Red Sox-pre-2004″ crowd of so many games before.
SpartanDanon 03 Nov 2008 at 7:31 pm 8How is it even possible that we won that game? Wisconsin outran us by 250 yards. Our receivers (aside from White) dropped the ball like it was a live grenade. (As an aside, that may be why Wisconsin got away with so much pass interference – if it wasn’t thrown to White, it was uncatchable by default.) If you look at the boxscore, it looks like at least a two-score loss.
And yet, somehow, that score still says 25-24. Unbelievable.
For those who are interested, the Rose Bowl tiebreaker situation:
- Head-to-head ONLY counts if you can split all the tied teams into two groups such that each team in Group A beat each team in Group B.
- If we aren’t knocked out by head-to-head, we win. All of the other four teams mathematically alive to tie for the title played a 1-AA team; we did not.
- PSU does not play Minnesota or Northwestern, already beat OSU, plays us later.
- Minnesota does not play us or PSU, lost to both Northwestern and OSU.
- Northwestern does not play PSU, lost to us, beat Minnesota, plays OSU later.
- OSU beat Minnesota and us, lost to PSU, plays Northwestern later.
- We beat Northwestern, lost to OSU, don’t play Minnesota, play PSU later.
With that in mind, here are the tie scenarios in which we go to the Rose Bowl:
- Any tie involving Northwestern
- Any tie involving both PSU and Minnesota
- A tie with Minnesota alone
- Any tie involving PSU if we beat PSU
Scenarios that would result in us losing out in a tie:
- A tie with OSU alone or OSU and Minnesota alone
- A tie with PSU alone or PSU and OSU alone if we lose to PSU
So, how do we get there?
- Win both and PSU loses only to us [tied with PSU and possibly OSU at 7-1]
- Win both and OSU loses at least once [alone or tied with PSU at 7-1]
- Win either game, PSU loses to both of the other two, Northwestern wins out [tied with Northwestern and possibly any combination of the others at 6-2]
- Beat PSU, PSU loses one of the other two, OSU loses at least once [tied with PSU and possibly any combination of the others at 6-2]
- Beat PSU, PSU loses both of the other two, OSU loses at least twice [alone or tied with Minnesota and/or Northwestern at 6-2]
- Beat Purdue, PSU loses both of the other two, OSU loses at least once, Minnesota wins out [tied with PSU, Minnesota, and possibly OSU and/or Northwestern at 6-2]
If we win both, PSU loses another game first, and OSU wins out, OSU goes. So we don’t quite control our own destiny.
Spartalyticalon 03 Nov 2008 at 8:47 pm 9That Saturday blog link was an entertaining read.
Scotton 04 Nov 2008 at 10:59 pm 10Thanks for the link Kyle. To clarify, my reference to our Big Ten Tournament basketball game was only that, a comparison between the two games and the gut-wrenchingness of them for the losers. I’m not confident enough to go saying “wait ’til basketball season” to State fans, as I fully expect Sparty to field the better team this year … just like I did last year!
Best of luck with the rest of football, looks like you may not have the Same Old Spartans after all.