01-02-2014, 11:37 AM
Running/Power football identity IS our identity because it worked. Our running game worked against Oregon because it could do what we couldn't vs. MSU. The two games aren't that comparable. If your "strength" is not working for any particular game, it behooves the coaching staff to have alternatives. That is where the critique of our game performance is based. Not much in-game adaptability.
[I am willing to listen to football experts make the argument that, in essence, it is simplistic and unreasonable to expect a team to change its scheme and plays like flipping a switch. Maybe nothing could be done in the game timeframe. Maybe]
As noted many places, we saw some truth about Hogan and Shaw's faith in him as the game wore on. That could explain why we kept doing what wasn't working very well. Add to that the complete disappearance of the TE for intermediate passing game and the reluctance of the staff to challenge MSU by passing where they were willing to let us try (intermediate, center of the field)... and you wind up with a result like we saw.
[I am willing to listen to football experts make the argument that, in essence, it is simplistic and unreasonable to expect a team to change its scheme and plays like flipping a switch. Maybe nothing could be done in the game timeframe. Maybe]
As noted many places, we saw some truth about Hogan and Shaw's faith in him as the game wore on. That could explain why we kept doing what wasn't working very well. Add to that the complete disappearance of the TE for intermediate passing game and the reluctance of the staff to challenge MSU by passing where they were willing to let us try (intermediate, center of the field)... and you wind up with a result like we saw.