Well, the final score wasn’t exactly representative of the way we dominated that game. Up 38-0 late, we gave up some late TDs against our backups to end with a somewhat underwhleming yet still convincing 45-21 win. It ended up being a very similar score to the 48-28 victory in 2004. Up next is a team with a scary offense and defense in Central Michigan [4]. Scary good offense, scary bad defense. It’ll be the last hurdle before we hit the SEC schedule and the competition really ramps up.

About the GSU Game

While in some ways Saturday was a sloppy game (11 penalties, most procedural), it was nothing like the debacle the 2004 game was. You may (or may not) recall that the halftime score in that game was 13-7. That game we gave up nearly 350 yards of offense, with right at 300 of it on the ground. This one wasn’t nearly as frustrating. It was pretty much the expected dry run for the season. Playing a bunch of freshmen you expect to see some not-so-crisp efforts and we did. They were trying hard, you just got the feeling sometimes they were guessing.

In the end it was what it was, a solid, never-in-doubt win over an overmatched, but game, team. We were able to get a bunch of young guys on the field and see how they responded “when the bullets were flying” and I think the overall response was excellent. We’ve got a lot of talent on this team. If we can get it all on the same page and get some injured folks back (Banks, Southerland) and some suspended guys ready (Boling, Munzenmaier) we could be pretty solid heading into SEC play.

CMU Offense

This CMU offense is explosive. No way around it. They put points up in bunches. They (of course) run the spread and will have folks all over the field. Because of that it opens up the run for the QB and he’s quite effective at it. They are a very balanced group, putting up 180 yards per game on the ground and nearly 270 through the air last year. This offense will be at another level from what we faced last weekend. Hopefully we can keep it contained.

At QB CMU sports Dan LeFevour. Get ready for the Tebow-lite comments. He’s a dual threat QB that works in a spread and puts up gaudy stats, so the comparisons are fair. LeFevour completed over 65% of his passes last year en route to 3,600+ yards passing, 27 TDs and only 13 INTs. He didn’t stop there. On the ground he amassed over 1,100 yards rushing on 188 carries (over 13 attempts per game avg.) with 19 rushing TDs. He’s a pretty big kid at 6-3, 226 but he moves well, more inclined to try and make you miss than run over you (not very Tebow-like). He had a phenomenal bowl game against Purdue, going for almost 300 yards passing, rushed for 114 and accounted for 6 TDs (4 passing and 2 rushing). Against BCS teams last year (Kansas, Clemson [5] and Purdue twice) his completion percentage dropped to 56% including 4 of his lowest 5 completions percentage games.

The CMU ground game revolves around LeFevour but they do have some interesting options at RB. They have a group of 4 guys that split carries last year and all could see time Saturday in an effort to avoid heat issues. Senior Ontario Sneed battled injuries but has impressive career numbers and will likely get the starting nod. Fellow senior Justin Hoskins got the bulk of the replacement carries last year and will see significant time also. This is a position of depth for CMU although they still rely on LeFevour for the bulk of their ground game. His 1,100 yards rushing nearly eclipsed the combined total of Sneed and Hoskins last year. Hoskins is the speed back, Sophomore Carl Volny is the future star (and got the bulk of carries in week 1) but almost all of the guys weigh in at a nearly inseperable 5-10, 195. Sneed and Hoskins tied for 5th on the team in receptions last year so look for them in that little dump pass over the middle that the spread loves.

CMU starts 4 WRs (so look for a lot of nickel packages this week). They return far and away their top 2 WRs in Jr. Bryan Anderson and So. Antonio Brown, both of whom were all-MAC 2nd teamers last year. Anderson led the team in yards (1,132), yards per catch (12.6) and TDs (10). Brown led the team in catches with 102 but also went over the 1,000 yard receiving mark as well. Anderson is a big target at 6-5, 213. Brown isn’t at 5-10, 180, but he is a shifty little fella and is a threat in the return game. CMU has to replace their #3 and #4 WR from last year with both graduating. The only name that really shows up of the guys stepping in is Kito Poblah, a sophomore that really came on strong at the end of 2007.

The CMU OL returns 4 of its 5 starters from last year. The star of the line is senior LT Andrew Hartline who has been named All-MAC for consecutive years and is a 4-year starter. This won’t be the biggest line we face all year with an average height and weight of 6-4, 293. The group did give up 22 sacks of LeFevour last season, including 6 in the bowl loss to Purdue. They surprisingly gave up none in their absolute destruction at the hands of Clemson.

Bottom Line: This offense is a dangerous one that can give any team fits because of LeFevour’s mobility and I fully expect some frustrating moments as a result of that. Obviously the key to stopping them will be stopping LeFevour. Look for a ton of nickel and probably a fair amount of 3-man fronts (we did that a fair amount last week) from our D as we try to match up with their 4 WR sets. Normally with a mobile QB you might see a safety spy on the QB but if they’ve got 4 or 5 WRs out there that’s difficult as the safety will have other responsibilities. Look for our MLBs to have some significant pressure on them to cover routes while at the same time keeping an eye on LeFevour. We should be able to contain their offense but any time you have a veteran, mobile QB in an offense perfectly suited for him you worry about the results.

Key Matchup to watch when they have the ball: He didn’t play much last week after the 1st quarter but I want to see Rennie Curran go after LeFevour a few times. Curran is at his best when he reads a running play and stalks it down, so watching him against a mobile QB should be interesting.

CMU Defense

The CMU defense was pretty horrid last year in terms of statistics. 109th in total defense, 111th in scoring defense, 94th in sacks, 84th in tackles for loss, 118th in pass defense, 106th in pass efficiency defense…not a pretty picture. Against BCS opponents last year they averaged giving up over 380 yards through the air and over 200 on the ground. That’s right, almost 600 yards of offense…in 4 games…not a small sample size. They did so poorly against the pass that in their bowl game Purdue gained a mere 41 yards on the ground yet still managed 587 yards of total offense due in large part to a gaudy 546 yards passing. They lost 4 starters off that unit, begging the question: “does losing players off a bad defense make it worse…or better”?