College round-up

Stanford @ Oregon

The NFL draft is always of course, a lottery. However there are some picks that it feels far more easy to be confident in. Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck is one such player.

From all the college games I have seen this year (and some of the pros), Luck has shown the most poise, awareness and accuracy. Most importantly, he remained consistently productive in this game and looks set to have an immensely bright future ahead of him.

ESPN commentator Brent Musberger assessed that Luck reminded him of a certain Peyton Manning, and it wasn't all hyperbole. There are still obviously areas which need development; Oregon managed to stifle Luck with blitz pressure from the cornerbacks in the second half.

But his easy-looking throws behind an offensive line that often blocked as a single wall were a joy to behold, and play-action was run with deadly efficiency by the Cardinal. Luck is also able to throw with stunning accuracy whilst on the move and tellingly, he also stood in and took hits to deliver an accurate ball, the sort of plays that have pro scouts drooling.

Ultimately Stanford couldn't halt the Oregon offensive juggernaut. You know exactly what's coming when you face the Ducks; read options, sweeps and screen passes aplenty, but it's quite another thing stopping them.

Oregon quarterback Darron Thomas inflicted damage most effectively on the ground, and although he passed for three touchdowns, the Ducks' down-field threat is reliant on catching the opposition on the backfoot. The big pass plays for Oregon were largely as a result of blown coverages by Stanford defenders biting on play-action fakes.

Alabama @ South Carolina

The week prior to Terrelle Pyror's troubles in Madison saw a South Carolina team led by the brilliant efficiency of quarterback Steven Garcia beat the then #1 ranked Crimson Tide.

Garcia was 9/9 at the half as the Gamecocks opened up a 21-3 lead that proved to be too difficult to surmount for the visitors.

Aided by strong performances from running back Marcus Lattimore and the reliable hands of receiver Alshon Jeffery, Garcia made the plays look easy. The Gamecock offense took the yards in manageable chunks over the middle of the field, and when they were forced or chose to go deeper down the field, Garcia's pinpoint accuracy was highly impressive.

Garcia actually looked more comfortable with these difficult throws; he was more wayward with the shorter screen passes and crossing routes. He began the second half with a poor mental error-choosing to rescue an errant snap by flinging it out the back of his own endzone for a safety, rather than simply falling to the ground and taking the lost yardage. But he recovered the very next drive to show impressive leadership in dragging his team down the field and scoring once more; over the course of the game South Carolina took advantage of a sluggish-looking Alabama linebacker corps and frequent poor tackling.

Offensively Greg McElroy looked his usual relaxed self, perhaps overly so; he appears to suffer a touch from Brett Favre-itis in hanging on to the football for lengthy periods of time even as the pressure closes in. He turned the ball over on a fumble ending one drive, while at other times taking disastrous sacks in the redzone that cost the Tide critical points.

Poor field goal misses and botched extra-point snaps also contributed to a stuttering performance by the #1 team, the only bright spots coming with McElroy taking advantage of a Julio Jones match-up on shorter back CC Whitlock to score the first touchdown, and spotting a coverage error from DeVonte Holloman in burning the Gamecocks deep with a Darius Hanks score to begin the fourth quarter.

The final 'gamble' came with Alabama's fake field goal attempt, coming after Tide freshman DeMarcus Milliner had broken up a pass and allowed a Will Lowery interception. The attempted fake failed disastrously, South Carolina promptly marched down the field and scored, and Alabama's further two possessions yielded no reward.

College round-up

Ohio State @ Wisconsin - October 16th 2010


Ohio State took the poisoned chalice of a #1 ranking into Wisconsin, and promptly lost it. There's something special about Big 10 football when Autumn comes around. I'm in admiration of the breadth of talent across the SEC and the sheer scale, colours and vibrancy of that conference, but a wintry game in Madison or East Lansing has an utterly unique appeal.

Wisconsin played to their primary strength as they had when I saw them last against Michigan State; running the ball behind their giant offensive line. They built up a sizeable lead early on and forced Ohio State to be more aggressive on offense.

Terrelle Pryor simply couldn't respond. He couldn't throw with any accuracy, frequently firing the ball nose-down into the turf yards short of his receivers. Other times Pryor relied on the superhuman and apparent telepathic efforts of DeVier Posey, Dane Sanzenbacher and Jake Stoneburner to pluck the ball from the air and ground, but by the fourth quarter even they could not make the catches needed to move the chains.

His inconsistently was infuriating, as he has the ability to fire the ball with some zip down the middle and scramble with deceptive pace and agility on regular occasion. But worryingly, when chasing the game late and under pressure, Pryor looked unable to plant his feet properly before throwing and settle into any form of rhythm. He was rushing throws, looking down receivers, and under-throwing passes.

Without consistent passing accuracy, and appearing unable to leave the ball in running back Dan Herron's hands for any length of time, Ohio State were left rather toothless.

Wisconsin stuck to what they do best, and John Clay made the field appear as though it were tilted down the throats of the Buckeye defense. The blocks were again easily established; holding Ohio State defenders static and perfectly legally, whilst clearing out second level threats in addition. Clay often had a choice of several lanes to pick from, and did substantial damage as a result.

James White was out in force again, although largely featuring in power formations and running a more physical game than I had seen before. It's a mightily impressive tandem, and Ohio State were powerless to stop them.

Scott Tolzien was largely unimpressive when passing and benefitted from receiver Al Toon out-muscling State cornerback Chimdi Chekwa on multiple occasions. Chekwa is good when brought up to the line on blitz plays and a strong tackler, but was too easily hustled off the ball when deeper in pass coverage.

On other occasions Tolzien missed a great one-on-one chance with Toon racing down the left sideline by placing the pass too far to the inside, and later threw a pick when completely failing to see Buckeye safety Andrew Sweat racing across the field. Maybe I happen to only see his less-productive games, but I don't get any sense of a consistent deep-threat from Tolzien's passing game. Not important to Wisconsin when they're beating the number one team in the country, but potentially damaging to his pro potential. The Wisconsin quarterback threw just 16 passes all game.

The Buckeye defense looked to have slowed Wisconsin in the third quarter; bringing extra pressure up to the line against a tiring Badger front four and holding them to a solitary possession. But in the fourth, Tolzien used a combination of safe screen-passes to Toon, checkdown passes to White and the dominant run game to puncture any air left in the State balloon with a touchdown.

Wisconsin's corner coverage showed significant improvement from when I saw them last; Antonio Fenelus had excellent knockdowns and was equally effective in coming up to make tackles, Aaron Henry was unlucky to not stay in bounds when intercepting Pryor early on.

Wisconsin were still vulnerable over the middle for medium gains, however. Ohio State's receivers were, through design or Pryor's throws, brought back to the ball and drawn into space for solid receptions. But the strong play of the linebackers in the second half and JJ Watt's relentless pursuit against inadequate blocking ensured that the Buckeyes were rocked back on their heels on a regular basis, and this was just about enough to counter the holes in pass coverage.

So the offensive line and running game won the game for the Badgers, Pryor's inaccuracies cost the Buckeyes. Another top-ranked seed falls in college football.

Vikings @ Packers frustrations

Two things should have had Vikings fans steaming by half-time in this one;

-How is Visanthe Shiancoe's catch not a touchdown? He maintains a solid grasp of the football in the air when falling to the ground, never bobbles it, and neither does the ground cause the football to squirm away from him and require an arm to pull it back into his body.

On top of all this, the call on the field was a touchdown and so the officials had to see indisputable evidence that they had made the wrong decision. Where was this evidence?

I'm all for receivers having to make solid catches and maintain a control on the ball, but give the guys a chance. Shiancoe stretched out and grabbed the ball out the air with brilliant control. As Cris Collinsworth said in the booth, what more do you have to do to make that a score?

- Brad Childress not going for a score before the half. If anything, this made me more angry than the Shiancoe call. Officials may beat up on you, but don't beat up on yourself. This kind of play-calling conservatism is infuriating.

OK you've just had a penalty draw the ball back down the field, but that very same penalty-(offensive pass interference overturning a huge reception for Randy Moss), showed that you have a credible deep threat. You've just run the ball with Adrian Peterson for a nice gain, you've got timeouts in the bank. What's there to lose?

Moss was clearly frustrated and Brett Favre showed a smile of disappointed resignation with his coach's decision. All of this coming on the back of an interception where you've stopped Green Bay as they appeared destined to score. A golden rule in football is surely to not kill your own momentum.

---

As for the overall game, this will be a painful and critical division loss to take for Minnesota. Rodgers looked uncharacteristically inaccurate but was at least able to complete passes when feeling the pressure or going to ground.

Brett Favre was his usual frustrating self, the love-hate relationship with the man continues. On one series he tries to make plays in hopeless situations and gifts the ball to the opposition, displaying as Mike Carlson asserted, a certain arrogance in believing he will always out-think and play the defenders.

And the next series and he's the same 41 year-old with tendonitis, but he's flinging the ball with ease downfield and into the endzone.

It was my opinion that Collinsworth gave Favre too easy a ride on his first two interceptions. (the third was a great defensive play by Woodson) Not least because Favre had also attempted to complete a further pass whilst being tackled by lobbing the ball weakly forward with an underarm throw, another pass that could have easily been picked.

He should be criticised for these mental errors, regardless of his career achievements or impact on the sport. They are basic errors that quarterbacks of his caliber simply shouldn't make. Supporters of Favre will claim that this is what you get with a gunslinging quarterback in his mould; you learn to take the bad with the good. But when the bad is the difference between winning and losing a game, it's difficult to stomach.

Play hard, die young

Recently, by coincidence, I have been reading the grimly-titled Play Hard, Die Young; Football Dementia, Depression and Death by leading forensic neuropathologist, Bennet Omalu.

Published in 2008, it helps provide some very interesting and relevant context to the currently unfolding events.

My post on Wednesday entitled 'applauding the NFL' should be taken within this context; I am fully aware that the league has been guilty in being too slow in both recognising the existence of brain damage caused by the sport, as well as in aiding those directly effected by it.

Here is an extract from the chapter entitled 'The response of the National Football League'. I encourage you to buy the full book.

'In 1994, Paul Tagliabue, the commissioner of the NFL, formed the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (MTBI) committee to examine the issue of concussions in football. The committee later recommended that the NFL should sponsor independent scientific research into the causes, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of concussions. These independent research projects may not have been as independent as we would have wanted them to be, since the one who pays the piper dictates the tune.

A globally significant mistake was made when the six initial members of the MTBI committee were appointed; they included a neurologist, a neurosurgeon, a neuropsychologist, a bio-mechanical engineer and an epidemiologist. There was no neuropathologist or an expert in the genesis or cascades of developments of disease (pathogenesis). The focus of the MTBI committee expectedly drifted to the biomechanics and acute manifestations of sports-related brain trauma. They published many scientific papers on these subjects without paying any attention to the possible delayed effects of repeated concussions. Understandably, we are all human and we all make mistakes.

Following the diagnosis of gridiron dementia on the first NFL player in 2002, my colleagues and I were obliged to climb to the top of the mountain of science and announce the news to the scientific community. Our professional obligation and responsibility was to report the case in a reputable scientific journal since it would be the very first autopsy-confirmed case of dementia in a football player published in the medical literature. We chose to publish this first case in the journal Neurosurgery because the NFL published most of its brain trauma-related medical research in this journal, although the validity of some of the research findings has been questioned.

The case was finally published in July 2005 after a drawn-out and tiring struggle to convince the reviewers and editors of the journal that the case was scientifically valid. But thankfully, and with our deep appreciation to the editorial board of the journal, especially Dr. Donald Marion, a prominent neurosurgeon, the case was finally published.

Several months after the publication of the first case, I received an email from Dr. Marion requesting that I respond to an attached letter that the MTBI committee of the NFL had submitted to the journal. He called me later to discuss the NFL letter and gracefully advised me on what was expected from me. My initial response was that of fear and trepidation. I have sweated profusely out of fear only on several occasions in my life; this was one of them.

I felt very intimidated by the fact that doctors who represented the almighty NFL had submitted a letter requesting the retraction of our printed paper. After a gulp of my favourite whisky, I settled down, printed the letter, and perused it. First, I noticed that it was rather too lengthy for a letter to the editor in response to a published paper in a journal. Second, I noticed that it may have been even longer than the original paper that was its subject matter. Third, I noticed that it was rather too unfriendly and noncollegial, too confrontational and accusatory, and just too critical. I smiled, my heart beat much slower, and the profuse sweating stopped. Perhaps the whisky was taking effect.

I smiled because the letter from the MTBI committee was too defensive. It reeked of ulterior motive. I was surprised by this response and stance since I had presumed that the NFL would be happy with our scientific findings, which I had assumed would enhance their research and understanding of concussions. I was proven wrong.

I shredded the printed copies of the letter and went about my chores for the day, hoping to deal with it some other time. I forwarded copies of the letter to my coauthors. Two weeks later I composed a response and sent it to my coauthors, who made changes before we finally submitted the response to Neurosurgery in May 2006.

The letter from the NFL was written and signed by Drs. Elliot J.Pellman, Ira R. Casson, and David C. Viano, three of the most prominent NFL physicians. Dr. Pellman was actually the chairman of the MTBI committee. They essentially requested that our paper be retracted since it was scientifically invalid and flawed. The only papers that are retracted from publication are papers written by authors who lied or who have forged results and conclusions-that is, dubiously and intentionally falsified scientific papers. Ours was not the least bit falsified. We simply reported what we saw. These NFL doctors probably wanted to set a precedent that if certain powerful and influential doctors do not like a published scientific paper, they may have it retracted. Certainly, they weren't the first group to try.

Drs. Pellman, Casson and Viano attacked us, claiming that we seriously misinterpreted the neuropathological findings in the case and that we had a complete misunderstanding of the relevant medical literature. Neither Dr. Pellman, Dr. Casson, nor Dr. Viano was a neuropathologist. I wondered how doctors who were not neuropathologists could interpret neuropathological findings better than neuropathologists, especially when these doctors did not think that it was prudent to appoint a neuropathologist to their committee, even in an advisory capacity.

They extensively reviewed the neuropathological literature in their letter, arguing that our first case did not have gridiron dementia and did not meet the neuropathological criteria for such a diagnosis. I was extremely disappointed, for it seemed then that the NFL may have unfortunately adopted a stance of denial. I truly understand the embarrassment our report may have caused the members of the MTBI committee, but rather than adopting a stance of denial, they should have considered options more constructive than spurting a rather emotion-laden letter to the editor of Neurosurgery.

We replied with a more collegial and fraternal letter, recognised their "scholarly" letter, and suggested that the NFL should seriously consider our first case as a sentinel case that warranted further investigation by the NFL to confirm if there was a danger of professional football players developing chronic and irreversible brain damage. We reiterated that the NFL should begin examining the long-term effects of brain injury in its former players and volunteered to collaborate with the MTBI committee in developing and implementing an optimal research program that would address this important issue. At the time of publication of this book, almost five years later, the MTBI committee of the NFL has neither sent me a letter nor given me a phone call.'

What I have found most disconcerting reading various stories about how the NFL has dealt with the issue, as well as case studies of those former players now suffering at various stages of mental problems, is that the more you read, the more horrors appear.

It slowly unravels; more pieces of the jigsaw begin to fall into place. New names appear, new cases, and one begins to realise that the sport has, until now at least, done a remarkably effective job of pushing the issue clean off the agenda. Frankly, it's frightening.

Inside the NFL addresses helmet-to-helmet hits

Excellent debate on the dangerous hitting issue on Inside the NFL, proving itself to be the best analysis programme on television again.

I'm in favour of the introduction of in-game ejections for players caught illegally hitting as suggested by Cris Collinsworth. Punish the offending team through reviewing plays on the spot, and cause them to suffer an immediate disadvantage whilst playing the team they have committed the offense against.

Equally I was pleased to hear James Brown bring up the issues around Alzheimer's and brain damage sustained from playing the sport; not nearly enough debates around the issue have addressed this specifically.

I wouldn't consider myself a fan of Phil Simms normally, but was delighted to hear him slam a fan who messaged in supporting the violence in the sport.

'I'm just going to say to him, be quiet, because you don't know anything. I don't want to hear that argument any more. Don't give me that 'quarterback wearing a skirt' thing either- that stuff is over. I mean do we have to have somebody die before we go, let's do it?

The game will still be great, they'll still watch, it'll still be exciting. So let's do it for the best interest and health of the players.'

Well said, sir.

Chiefs-Texans

Chiefs-Texans was a fantastic spectacle, mainly thanks to both sides almost complete lack of pass coverage across the middle, and inability to stop the other side marching back up the field.

It was a classic game for the manic Gus Johnson to call, but Steve Tasker needs to learn to think before he speaks. Tasker is an analyst that feels the need to fill dead air with meaningless cliches or worse still, basic errors. As Kansas City attempted to drive down the field and behind 35-31, Tasker assessed that the position of the ball for the Chiefs would make it a 'long field goal', before realising that three points weren't quite what KC had in mind.

And having criticised the Texans defense all game long, as they were driving to score the winning touchdown, he announced:

'Two really, really good football teams going at it late in the fourth quarter!'

Contradicting statements like this through a lack of focus over the course of the game is infuriating to listen to.

Tasker is still far better than Mike Patrick, mind.

Talking points

* Brandon Flowers had the better of Andre Johnson at several points throughout the game and was unlucky to concede a soft-looking interference call that should have gone against the Texan in Houston's final drive.

* The Chiefs were impressive running the ball. Jamaal Charles has an attractive light-footed lateral ability that means he can hop around until he finds an open lane. His statistics look more impressive given he was running against a previously strong defensive line for the Texans.

Supporting the new NFL rules on dangerous tackles

Following several incidents in week 6, the National Football League has made the decision to introduce fines and possible suspensions for players who commit dangerous and unnecessary helmet-to-helmet tackles on 'defenseless' ball-carriers.


Patriots defender Brandon Merriweather launches himself at the unprotected Todd Heap


Dunta Robinson collides with Desean Jackson


Steelers player James Harrison hits Cleveland's Mohamed Massaquoi

Being an issue that I feel passionately about and that I have written about before, I'm fully behind the NFL's decision to introduce such measures.

Predictably, many current players saw it a different way. Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher spoke to the Chicago Tribune:

"It's freaking football. There are going to be big hits,'' Urlacher said. "I don't understand how they can do this after one weekend of hitting. And I can't understand how they can suspend us for it. I think it's a bunch of bull (crap).

"You know what we should do? We should just put flags on everybody. Let's make it the NFFL — the National Flag Football League. It's unbelievable.''

And James Harrison, involved in one of the two more-flagrant incidents on Sunday and fined $75,000 as a result, threatened to quit the game.

What Harrison has said has made him look both petulant and immature. Here is a player who has in the past made no secret about going out in games and attempting to injure opponents, and with such an attitude he will, in my eyes at least, no loss to the sport should he decide to leave.

What needs to change quickly is the attitude that 'it's football, get on with it'. Tell that to former professionals now struggling with the devastating effects of brain damage induced by repeated concussions. Protective equipment was developed for the game following injuries to players, and this same equipment has now become a weapon itself. The sport must do what it can in order to adapt again.

I get the appeal of the big helmet-on-helmet hits; the dramatic immediacy of the stop, the testosterone-fueled reaction it brings, and the sheer drama of the play. But you cannot keep such hits and also keep the long-term health of players safeguarded. And in a choice between the two, I'll put the player's safety first, every time.

The idea that the game will fundamentally change, or that the physical nature of the sport is being completely removed is flawed. Only the unnecessarily violent plays will be penalised. The message to defenders is this; tackle properly and without causing undue injury or distress to your opponent. That is hardly too much to ask for, is it?

Anything that can be done to reduce the frequency of concussions and head injuries in general must be encouraged, and simply asking that players avoid such tackles is ultimately for their own benefit. (What the league has yet to consider is the concussive effects of regular and repeated helmet contact between players at the line of scrimmage)

The debate currently being had has at least meant that we have heard players such as former Patriots safety Rodney Harrison, voicing his regrets about the way he played the game following his retirement.

The possibility of getting fined or ultimately suspended should mean that players have to think before they tackle, which can be no bad thing. For one it should see coaches having to instruct players on how to tackle properly, not leading with the head but wrapping the arms and bringing the player down.

By tragic coincidence, this week in college football saw Rutgers defensive linesman Eric LeGrand being paralysed from an impact during a special teams play, when he lowered his helmet into the body of an opponent. If these are the possible immediate effects from head collisions, the significance of the long term effects should also be apparent. If anything can make professionals like Harrison think twice before either speaking or tackling, LeGrand's life-changing injury should.

Revisiting Vikings-Jets

'Redben' over at nfluk.com made valid criticisms of some of the points made in my Vikings-Jets Monday night report:

'I'd take issue with a number of points there.

The Vikings defense isn't weak. It hasn't dominated at the line of scrimmage the way it has in the past but it remains a classic bend-but-don't-break Tampa 2. We give up yards but not points. Despite frequently being left in difficult situations due to the offenses inability to move the ball and its turnovers the defense has conceded just 4 touchdowns in 4 games (the other two we've conceded were by the offense).

Failing to pick up the blitz isn't really the fault of the O-line. The additional rushers should be getting picked up by other blockers and on Monday it was the backs in particular who were at fault. One of the major reasons we improved as the game went on was because the backs started picking up on their blocking assignments and Favre was able to stand in the pocket.

Moss beat Cromatie for his touchdown. He needs an accurate pass as well but he blew by the coverage.

The Jets threw the ball 44 times to 30 rushes and 2 wildcat rushes. Sanchez' completion percentage was under 50% and in the first six Jets possessions he threw ball deep six times but completed only two. So much for conservative play calling failing to take advantage of a weak Vikings secondary. In the second half in particular Sanchez struggled to get a completion.

AP only ran the ball 18 times for a very healthy 4.9 ypc. Gerhart added another 2. Favre threw 34 times and on a further 4 occasions was forced to run due to pressure from the Jets. We were no more successful throwing on early downs than running on early downs in the first half of the game. In six possessions we threw on all downs twice and failed to move the ball any further than when we ran on the first two downs. So much for conservative playcalling costing us.

The Jets play 8 in the box a lot regardless of the opposition running game. Rex Ryan schemes his defense that way (he takes after his father). Ryan's defense's rely on the CB's and FS being able to cover the secondary without any help. That's why players like Ed Reed and Darelle Revis are so important to their success.'

This caused me to revisit the game, as well as look at the statistics and drive charts. What I found was surprising; had I been watching the same game?-the Vikings had indeed attempted more pass plays in the opening half than I had originally credited, and as redben pointed out, it was more a case of inability to get any form of offense started, as opposed to rigidly sticking with only run plays.

American football is a unique sport in that it creates games with such distinct momentum shifts and a mixture of the incredibly memorable against the immediately forgettable plays that I had convinced myself of a play-calling trend that was perhaps not there. Therefore the running plays, although largely held in check by the Jets, did at least acquire short yardage which grabbed my attention. The broken pass plays and incompletions slipped my memory when writing the report.

I had fallen into the trap that befalls many sports commentators out there; assessing trends that you convince yourself you are seeing instead of what is actually happening in front of you.

That is not to say that I have become a fan of Brad Childress' play-calling all of a sudden. I still find him to be overly cautious and predictable; but the fact remains that he had attempted to move the ball aerially in the opening half.

---

Part of the attraction of the sport for me is this hidden complexity; reviewing the game afresh with relevant statistics and drive charts can completely change your perspective of the action. As, of course, analysing the game again free from the emotional involvement of being a Vikings fan with a more objective cap on.

American football is a sport of smoke and mirrors and different perspectives. When I first began watching in 2005 or so, I found the game to take too long to complete, and by last season I was concerned that the games to be too fast with too little on field action.

Take this article in the Wall Street Journal for example. Even as a relatively seasoned American football fan I found the headline statistic on the small percentage of time the ball was in play during a game to be fascinating.

But in another way, such a statistic is utterly worthless; it is the equivalent of measuring the amount of time the pieces in chess are actually in movement, or dismissing the athleticism of the 100 metre sprint as it is over in 10 seconds.

I realised that I like the fact that a game takes 3 hours or more to complete. The best games are those that play out slowly like a classic film; there are constantly developing plot lines as the plays go by, there are heroes and villains, moments of dramatic action and emotion, as well as periods of calm.

Watching just the action from the ball being snapped to the whistle blowing in an NFL game gives a black and white picture of what happened sequentially, but only by watching the moments between the plays can you monitor the personnel changes, the one-on-one strategical match-ups and appreciate the intangibles such as momentum shifts and players putting in great performances.

No other sport combines strategy with agility, skill, aggression and violence in such a captivating manner.

Various college games round up

A few talking points from some of the college games I've finally got around to watching recently.

Wisconsin @ Michigan State - October 2nd, Week 5

First time I've seen the Wisconsin offensive line in action, and they are mightily impressive. They put on a master class in legal blocking, blitz pick up and driving the Michigan State D-line back on almost every play.

Even I could run for good yards behind such ability, and so John Clay was able to with relative ease. Clay is a good downhill momentum runner, but he sometimes makes unnecessary cuts, and I was more impressed by freshman running back James White who has greater agility and acceleration. White ran in for Wisconsin's first touchdown behind the line who not only picked up the Michigan State blitz, but actually drove the Spartans back a step. Stunning:



Because of the effectiveness of the running game, the Spartans were forced to bring linebackers up to make tackles, leaving their defensive backs dangerously exposed. Though passes were completed as a result and often under heavy blitz pressure, there were also a number of drops from Badger receivers, and the passing game never really got going for Wisconsin.

Strangely, the Badgers also adjusted their running strategy to using outside runs and end- arounds for no apparent reason, and it ended drives prematurely. One such resulting punt ended up with Keyshawn Martin returning the ball to the house for a State touchdown, and the momentum began to shift.

I love watching Michigan State with Kirk Cousins at quarterback, as you know you are guaranteed some offensive fireworks. Cousins flings the ball with almost reckless abandon to a number of different receivers, but despite his good accuracy especially when throwing deep or to the sidelines, he doesn't particularly have a great deal of pace on the ball.

Every once in a while this results in an errant throw for an easy interception as happened here. If he goes pro, Cousins will face defensive backs with far more pace and vision and is liable to throw plenty of interceptions unless he learns to check down or throw the ball away.

The Wisconsin D-line were as solid as their offensive counterparts, and even with Michigan State throwing in Tight-Ends for extra blockers, Wisconsin were still sacking Cousins. The Spartan running game largely suffered too as a result, but State showed some ability of their own to block downfield on a number of outside runs. It was strange that State's play-calling appeared to ignore this; with a 1st and goal and on all four subsequent downs they resolutely tried to run the ball through the middle, unsurprisingly to no avail.

The Wisconsin secondary was also decidedly porous, and against a receiving corps as talented as that of MSU's they were always liable to be punished. With a running game established, the play-action pass was devastatingly efficient for State, and Charlie Gantt and B J Cunningham converted endless first downs and scores.

On the other side of the ball, Wisky quarterback Scott Tolzien appeared to lose confidence in his receivers deep downfield, and wary of MSU's talented linebackers, attempted to rely on shorter routes underneath interspersed with White running the football.

But it wasn't enough. State ran the clock on a huge drive in the last quarter, and Wisconsin were unable to slow them. Wisconsin lost thanks to bad drops, penalties, and questionable play-calling.

This being the first time I have seen Wisconsin this season, maybe that is all they can offer; a strong offensive line and running game. But if you struggle to score and cannot stop teams from scoring the other way, you're heading for defeat.

Sunday Night Football review

What an utterly strange game this was.

Having made my post about Cutler last week, he turned in awful performance here against the Giants. My biggest concern about him has been his mental fortitude, too many times in the past I have seen him crumble into negativity after one mistake, which often leads to more.

Eight more, in the case of this game. Cutler was sacked (or at least technically chased out of bounds for a sack) 9 times in the opening half by a Giants defense made to look better by an amateurish Chicago O-line performance. He would retire from the action with a concussion sustained during one such slam to the turf.

It was, as Cris Collinsworth said, circus stuff.

A percentage of the blame can be apportioned to the protection, which repeatedly became laughably porous; Giants defenders often reaching the Bears ball-carriers within seconds of the snap. But Cutler made bizarre decisions, throwing the ball for an interception when there was nothing open, but holding the ball for an eternity when the pressure demanded he at least throw it away.

A team in better form than New York would surely have piled on the points in the early going, but it wasn't until late in the 3rd quarter that the Giants were able to put together a sustained drive for an Ahmad Bradshaw touchdown.

This was in part down to a solid defensive display by the visitors led by defensive end Julius Peppers, but also from a stuttering offensive production by New York that saw Brandon Jacobs continue his frustrating tendency to fumble the football.

It was a game that for long periods looked set to end 3-0 to the Giants, which in truth would probably have been a fair score-line. The brightest moves were the neat plays of Giants receiver Hakeem Nicks in both dipping shoulders to out-manouvre Bears defenders, and physical play to come back to an Eli Manning pass to set up a Giants score in the final quarter.

A game to remember for the most unusual of reasons.

Talking points

* A number of teams seem to use a large number of offensive plays that are simply too slow to develop. The Wildcat offense has lost its ability to surprise defenses, and most pro players are too fast to use end-arounds and sweeps with much effect. I'd rather be seeing more direct runs at the line of scrimmage to gain at least small yardage.

* It's now week 4 and there are no excuses for players not being aware of the rules. Leading into tackles with your helmet (as the Giants did last night on Todd Collins) will most likely result in a penalty, and whether or not you agree with the principles, a rule is a rule. Wrap the carrier properly and stop incurring costly penalties.