Short Answer: NO ...the fact that Michigan State didn't have to defend the middle of the field as much, defend the run as much (because our receivers and running backs needed to get out of bounds) , and our plays were limited by no time and no timeouts. So Kellogg was more hampered running a one minute drill than Michigan State was in defending it. Kellog led a touchdown drive IN SPITE of the the conditions he faced, not BECAUSE of it. Also note that Ron Kellogg didn't spend the entire time on his back during that drive due to the offensive line being unable to give him time to pass in the pocket. Nothing left to discuss here, those that are fine with Armstrong playing almost the whole game and the resultant loss aren't really open to conjectures about alternate endings. First post so here goes.... I agree RKIII should have been in earlier in the game than the last drive! I really don't understand posters here, everyone knows about Tommy's passing and yet someone brings up the fact that the best passer we have (at the moment) never got to see the field until the game was un-winnable and many argue against it. You can't have it both ways, either Tommy was having a good day passing or he wasn't, the consensus on his passing is pretty much that he WAS having a bad day. So why is it all that hard to see that trying another QB may be a viable option, how does anyone know that he wouldn't come out and rule the field? And as far as their defense having an easier time of it and applying more pressure etc, I can't agree, since from what I saw they had their starters in for that drive and weren't doing a very good job of stopping RKIII. I just don't buy it. Speaking of which this is something our coaching staff has difficulties with, same thing in the Minnesota game, why didn't they ever try another quarterback, since Taylor was not able to run and he has never been the worlds best passer, and never a pocket passer.....especially when we are still in the game.