RKIII after last TD

[Bowfin]

ya think maybe kellogg got lucky that MSU was running a semi prevent

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.

 

[Warpster]

ya think maybe kellogg got lucky that MSU was running a semi prevent

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.

 

[Count 'Bility]

In case anyone didnt notice, I didnt respond once to that nonsense. I barely read it.

 

[ADS]

ya think maybe kellogg got lucky that MSU was running a semi prevent

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.

Holy sh#t, this can't be serious?

 

[The Dude]

RK3 should've been in the game at an early point.

Heck. I kinda am wondering where RK3 has been all these years. He didn't suddenly blossom into a promising player with no real previous game experience in the last year.

Word up.

 

[grandpasknee]

so have we decided if we would have won if we had peyton manning starting for us?

LOL...thanks for the laugh and good perspective..

 

[3rd and long]

I have no problem with those saying RK111 should have had a series or two early on, especially with TA obviously not having his best day. Sometimes just taking a series or two off can really help. But, has anyone watched the last six years, BO (or whomever makes that call) NEVER pulls the QB if they are struggling. He may switch it up if they have it already planned, but not spur of the moment.

Also, if anyone thinks the last TD drive wasn't hugely a product of a prevent defense, then you've really never watched football with any understanding. They played soft and deep to take away the long, quick score. They give up the short, underneath stuff with the idea of keeping the ball in front of them and inbounds and the offense using up the clock to possibly get a score. And its no surprise they didn't get to Kellogg, they were only rushing three guys (hence eight in coverage, ie the prevent).

 

[Danimal]

After the Mich game I thought TA should stay in unless he struggled. Well he struggled. Our O-line was holding-up surpringly well and it isn't like RK is Bernie Kosar back there. RK should've gotten a shot

 

[Glendower]

so have we decided if we would have won if we had peyton manning starting for us?

Or Dan Marino, yeah. If we had only had just ONE of the best quarterbacks in history, the game would have possibly gone better. I think we're also in agreement that RK3 is of the same caliber as those other QBs and that {insert name of whoever is playing currently} is the worst quarterback we have.