[doug]

This thread sets the right tone -- MSU deserves credit. That is why I am responding here rather than in the threads criticizing Shaw, but I agree with the criticisms. One of the biggest reasons MSU deserves credit is that their coaches chose to respond and adapt to the recognition that MSU could not sustain a rushing attack against our defense. We did not make the same response and adaptation. Dantonio trusted his players to put them in a position to win even in a different way than he preferred. In my opinion, Shaw did not. No reasonable observer could point to anything in the 2nd half (actually from midway in the 2nd qtr. on) that would support the logic of our 4th quarter play-calling, much less the play-calling and abysmal clock management of the final drive. Perhaps the most damning critique I would make, consistent with the theme of this thread, is that if the coaches were switched just in terms of game-day coaching (Dantonio was coaching Stanford and Shaw coaching MSU), I think we would have won the game without drama. Our approach went beyond stubborn; it was unreasonably stubborn to pigheaded. 

FWIW, a reasonable LA Times sports writer, Bill Dwyre (not Plaskche who's an idiot blowhard) agrees:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/fo...906.column

[doug]

This thread sets the right tone -- MSU deserves credit. That is why I am responding here rather than in the threads criticizing Shaw, but I agree with the criticisms. One of the biggest reasons MSU deserves credit is that their coaches chose to respond and adapt to the recognition that MSU could not sustain a rushing attack against our defense. We did not make the same response and adaptation. Dantonio trusted his players to put them in a position to win even in a different way than he preferred. In my opinion, Shaw did not. No reasonable observer could point to anything in the 2nd half (actually from midway in the 2nd qtr. on) that would support the logic of our 4th quarter play-calling, much less the play-calling and abysmal clock management of the final drive. Perhaps the most damning critique I would make, consistent with the theme of this thread, is that if the coaches were switched just in terms of game-day coaching (Dantonio was coaching Stanford and Shaw coaching MSU), I think we would have won the game without drama. Our approach went beyond stubborn; it was unreasonably stubborn to pigheaded. 

FWIW, a reasonable LA Times sports writer, Bill Dwyre (not Plaskche who's an idiot blowhard) agrees:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/fo...906.column