[BostonCard]

Michigan state played a heck of a game, and I don't think anyone feels the final score is somehow not reflective of what we saw on the field.  Yeah I think we got hurt by the refs, and yeah I'd have made some calls differently.  But the fact of the matter was that msu played smart, fundamentally sound football, and beat us on the field.

I think the big difference in the game was msu's surprisingly effective passing attack.  Cook had a career game, congrats to him for stepping up on the big stage and making the throws he had to make, except for a couple.  A lot has already been made about our dB's and they did have a painful to watch game.  But I think a big contributing factor was that pur pressure on cook was very inconsistent.  We got to him a couple times, and obviously the pick-6 was brobdingnagian at the time.  But it seemed like a lot of the time he had too much time to throw, either because the msu line did a nice job picking up the pass rush or because cook did a nice job moving around the pocket or outside to buy time.  On too many throws he just had too much time.

Our offensive struggles today are well-documented, especially after the first quarter.  The other thing that hurt us was the inability to punch it in, which has been an ongoing theme.  We desperately need to develop some pass catching tight ends.  We have a few who redshirted the year and it is my hope that they can contribute next year.  It will be an interesting year since most of our returning offensive talent comes on the passing game side (qb and all our wr's).

Despite the outcome, I still had a blast today with my brother and kids.  Weather was gorgeous, the Stanfordside of the stadium was rocking, despite being outnumbered by more than 2:1.  Even the msu fans were gracious and friendly, and the msu band played tribute to the lsjumb.

BC

[BostonCard]

Michigan state played a heck of a game, and I don't think anyone feels the final score is somehow not reflective of what we saw on the field.  Yeah I think we got hurt by the refs, and yeah I'd have made some calls differently.  But the fact of the matter was that msu played smart, fundamentally sound football, and beat us on the field.

I think the big difference in the game was msu's surprisingly effective passing attack.  Cook had a career game, congrats to him for stepping up on the big stage and making the throws he had to make, except for a couple.  A lot has already been made about our dB's and they did have a painful to watch game.  But I think a big contributing factor was that pur pressure on cook was very inconsistent.  We got to him a couple times, and obviously the pick-6 was brobdingnagian at the time.  But it seemed like a lot of the time he had too much time to throw, either because the msu line did a nice job picking up the pass rush or because cook did a nice job moving around the pocket or outside to buy time.  On too many throws he just had too much time.

Our offensive struggles today are well-documented, especially after the first quarter.  The other thing that hurt us was the inability to punch it in, which has been an ongoing theme.  We desperately need to develop some pass catching tight ends.  We have a few who redshirted the year and it is my hope that they can contribute next year.  It will be an interesting year since most of our returning offensive talent comes on the passing game side (qb and all our wr's).

Despite the outcome, I still had a blast today with my brother and kids.  Weather was gorgeous, the Stanfordside of the stadium was rocking, despite being outnumbered by more than 2:1.  Even the msu fans were gracious and friendly, and the msu band played tribute to the lsjumb.

BC

[BostonCard]

Two more adds:

1) we had some shoddy tacklong today.  I'd say surprising, but we had a couple of hints against asu.

2) surprised we didn't blitz more.  I know the dB's struggled, but Cook panicked a couple times under pressure.  The pick-six was on a nickel blitz.  It seemed like we rushed four (and even three) most of the time after and cook largely carved us up.

BC

[BostonCard]

Two more adds:

1) we had some shoddy tacklong today.  I'd say surprising, but we had a couple of hints against asu.

2) surprised we didn't blitz more.  I know the dB's struggled, but Cook panicked a couple times under pressure.  The pick-six was on a nickel blitz.  It seemed like we rushed four (and even three) most of the time after and cook largely carved us up.

BC

[Rando]

You could tell they were the better team today. Their defense was phenomenal and I've never seen our offensive line get beat like that. Our defense did really good too, for the most part. I give them a bunch of credit.

[Rando]

You could tell they were the better team today. Their defense was phenomenal and I've never seen our offensive line get beat like that. Our defense did really good too, for the most part. I give them a bunch of credit.

[pincemob]

This thread sets the right tone.  Michigan State played like a top-5 team, and so did we.  They took more risks on offense which paid off in part due to our dropped interceptions and some help from the officials.  I don't recall reading much about Bennie Fowler but his back-shoulder catch to set up their second TD and his long, dragging-Reynolds catch were impressive.  The officials were not our friends.  The end-zone PI and the hold on the Richards pick were enough to change the outcome, while as others noted, they permitted a lot of holding by MSU which hurt our pass rush.  On the Langford sweep TD their lineman tackled our end from behind.  I am pretty sure you can't do that.  With that said, they held our offense to 11 first downs so it's hard to say we deserved to win. 

Just a note for perspective.. even if we get the 1-yard at the end, it's far from sure we'd have scored a TD.  We were on our own 34 yard line.  Even with that yard, I'd have placed the odds of a TD at 15-20%.  That is why the one area I'd second guess Shaw was in kicking the field goal on the prior possession.  In the red zone, our TD percentage is around 50%, maybe more like 35% against good defenses.  That was our best chance of getting a TD, as opposed to a 75 yard drive (as it turned out without Montgomery).  Interestingly, there was loud booing in the Stanford section when he sent in the kicking team.  That really surprised me (I was definitely not booing, just kind of puzzled.  When is the last time Shaw was booed?  I didn't like it). 

[pincemob]

This thread sets the right tone.  Michigan State played like a top-5 team, and so did we.  They took more risks on offense which paid off in part due to our dropped interceptions and some help from the officials.  I don't recall reading much about Bennie Fowler but his back-shoulder catch to set up their second TD and his long, dragging-Reynolds catch were impressive.  The officials were not our friends.  The end-zone PI and the hold on the Richards pick were enough to change the outcome, while as others noted, they permitted a lot of holding by MSU which hurt our pass rush.  On the Langford sweep TD their lineman tackled our end from behind.  I am pretty sure you can't do that.  With that said, they held our offense to 11 first downs so it's hard to say we deserved to win. 

Just a note for perspective.. even if we get the 1-yard at the end, it's far from sure we'd have scored a TD.  We were on our own 34 yard line.  Even with that yard, I'd have placed the odds of a TD at 15-20%.  That is why the one area I'd second guess Shaw was in kicking the field goal on the prior possession.  In the red zone, our TD percentage is around 50%, maybe more like 35% against good defenses.  That was our best chance of getting a TD, as opposed to a 75 yard drive (as it turned out without Montgomery).  Interestingly, there was loud booing in the Stanford section when he sent in the kicking team.  That really surprised me (I was definitely not booing, just kind of puzzled.  When is the last time Shaw was booed?  I didn't like it). 

[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

[fullmetal]

MSU deserved the win.  The coaching staff is part of the team, and I think a fair share of the loss can be attributed to not putting players in a position to win.  Defense was a little schizo--great stops, but also whiffing on turnover opportunities and being put on the ropes during that hurry-up Langford primetime drive.  Great call from Spartan coaches, something I wish Stanford would do more often to demoralize and crush opposing DLs.  Yup.

[fullmetal]

MSU deserved the win.  The coaching staff is part of the team, and I think a fair share of the loss can be attributed to not putting players in a position to win.  Defense was a little schizo--great stops, but also whiffing on turnover opportunities and being put on the ropes during that hurry-up Langford primetime drive.  Great call from Spartan coaches, something I wish Stanford would do more often to demoralize and crush opposing DLs.  Yup.

[StanFan88]

This thread sets the right tone.  Michigan State played like a top-5 team, and so did we.

Half-right.  We did not play like a top-5 team.  We played like the team that lost at USC.  We needed to play like the team that beat ASU and Oregon.

[StanFan88]

This thread sets the right tone.  Michigan State played like a top-5 team, and so did we.

Half-right.  We did not play like a top-5 team.  We played like the team that lost at USC.  We needed to play like the team that beat ASU and Oregon.