This week's Questions:
1. The Spartan Offense looked shaky and took lots of hits in the public eyes in September, but let's face it, right now they look pretty good. How much of the progress is due to player performance, and how much is due to coaching?
2. There was some discussion of how MSU managed the clock at the end of the first half. The television commentary seemed to be stuck on the idea that goal of that possession was to score. What is your take on that possession?
3. We can all agree that winning on Senior Day is a major priority for many reasons, but at what point should some of the starters take a seat on the bench to keep them healthy for the league championship game? Specifically, under what circumstances should Connor Cook come out, and who should be the first one in to replace him?
4. What's up with that Mike Griffith of MLive? He seems to always take a very negative view on the MSU Football team, with articles that highlight problems instead of accomplishments, and possible risks instead of potential rewards. Is he the current leader of the "Michigan Mainstream Media Machine", ostensibly working as a beat-reporter, but functionally trying to turn public opinion against the Spartans on a regular basis?
Panel Responses:
1. The Spartan Offense looked shaky and took lots of hits in the public eyes in September, but let's face it, right now they look pretty good. How much of the progress is due to player performance, and how much is due to coaching?
Players should always get their due for game-day performances. The catch by Fowler against Northwestern, the great games by Cook, and the whole season by Langford should be credited largely to those players.
But play-calling, pre-game preparation, and game-planning falls within the coaching domain. For as much as some people were calling out certain coaches by name at the beginning of the season for complaints, those same coaches should be credited with making this offense what it is today.
The Offensive Line is the real story of why the MSU Offense has become effective and exciting to watch, and the intricacies of line-play are so complex that it's virtually impossible to avoid crediting the coaching staff. Yes, those players are performing on the field, but they have little chance to be successful if the coaches don't put them in the right positions to do so.
I think you have to give credit to both players and coaches for the offensive development. I am still not buying too much stock in either group quite yet but players have looked better (which I would attribute to coaching) and they have executed too. The reason I am not buying stock in either quite yet is just the mistakes we still see. Play calling has missed big at times and players have missed huge opportunities. The big difference between this year's offense and last year, is this year they are able to take advantage of the position the defense puts them in. While to offense isn't putting the team on its back and carry things (like you see with a team like OSU) they have gotten the job done and there is something to be said for that.
Yes, Yes. It is illogical to assume all things remain unchanged. Likewise it is illogical to assume change can be instantaneous.
Those kids would not succeed if the coaches were not doing the job. What is the job? Conditioning, practice, fundamentals, film review, performance critiques, technique development, game planning, offensive schemes, game management, motivation, morale, conflict resolution (not much seen needing intervention, just FYI), media interaction, and a large bucket of other stuff that rarely gets mention but are just as critical to success as a completed pass or a made FG. It's all in the inches category.
The coaches can't succeed if the kids were not doing the jobs. What is the job? Strenght and speed conditioning, practice, fundamentals, film review, performance critiques, technique development, play book study, communications, learning the schemes, learning the nuances of their team mates, grades, social stability, leadership, morale, conflict avoidance and mitigation (not much seen needing intervention, just FYI), media performance, and a large bucket of other stuff that rarely gets mention but are just as critical to success as a well made block or a difficult catch.
The common denominator is time. It takes time to develop and mature. What we have witnessed this year is the envy of just about every college football team - constant improvement over the season and raising the bar and the competition stiffens.
We fans can take a lesson from this and can look to that program for quality role models:
Yes, we can take as a good role model an angry or upset Coach Dantonio deflecting an aggressive media question by saying not that question, ask something else.
Yes, we can take as a good role model Andrew Maxwell accepting the changes and diving in to make the new QB successful.
Yes, we can take as a good role model Isaiah Lewis walking off the field having been ejected for what was a questionable call that might have actually been wrong. His team mates gave him nothing but positive and encouraging words as he left, head held high.
Yes, we can take as a good role model each MSU player who handed the ball to the official and did not do some immature TD celebration. Walk away like it is no big deal, a common place occurrence, been there done that.
2. There was some discussion of how MSU managed the clock at the end of the first half. The television commentary seemed to be stuck on the idea that goal of that possession was to score. What is your take on that possession?
To put things into perspective, it is the goal of every possession to score. The gross mismanagement of time is unacceptable whether it be a 5 yard penalty or a sequence of errors that keeps the team from moving down the field in a 2-minute drill. The Spartans seemed to be taken by surprise that they got the ball, which is also disquieting. We've seen miscues like this before, but it is more a surprise this last game because we actually have our expectations very high.
Now, on to the media. The media has seemingly gone out of its way over the past few months to paint MSU in the darkest possibly hues. We have seen back handed compliments. We have seen repetition of unsportsmanlike comments (the Hart insult). We have seen downplaying of successes and outright disparaging remarks at any and all shortcomings real or imagined. We heard ABC announce the game Michigan versus "Little Brother Michigan State."
During the game, at the end of the first half, a media person shoved a microphone into Dantonio's face and asked about the time mismanagement. The timing was mere moments after it happened and to my way of thinking all Dantonio was concentrating on was how best to address this to the team to get it locked down. No coach owes the media any time. No coach is required to smile and pretend it is hot stuff that this particular reporter or that one deigned to give the coach air time. From my point of view, the reporter was in the wrong and was rude. That question should not have been asked at that time. After the game would have been fine.
The shame in all of this is that we are obliged to talk about this in the first place. Coach Dantonio told the reporter to ask another question, which happened and it was answered. End of story.
The primary objective on that series was to keep Northwestern from getting the ball back in the first half. The Spartans met that objective.
While it's nice to tack on a few points as the first half ends, Dantonio knew he would start the second half with the ball and the wind at his back. That's two possessions in a row, and the second one was the better scoring opportunity. There probably could have been a timeout or two used on the controversial series, but what if MSU fumbled or threw an interception after calling timeout? Wouldn't that circumstance also have drawn criticism?
Like it or not, Dantonio is a disciple of Jim Tressel, and he plays by the invisible rules of "Tressel Ball". He is defensive-minded, and he plays it safe most of the time. With a two score lead and the ball to start the second half, running out the clock does not represent a failure in that situation.
No team scores on every single possession, and for the reporter to jump on Dantonio with two negative questions seems like an attack on MSU to me. The boy-reporter and the kid-announcers were either too dense to understand "Tressel Ball", or they were doing their best to make Michigan State look bad.
ATownAndDown (
Follow him on M-Live)
Hindsight is always 20/20. MSU took over with a lead with less than 2 minutes going into a strong head wind. They played it conservatively to open things up. Basically if you try and press and go 3 and out, you could be punting from your 15 into that head wind and give NW the ball around midfield with 60-90 seconds left. With the wind at their back, FG range was not that far away. It took 3 plays to get that first down and then we picked up 25 yards on the next two plays. So looking back, I am sure Coach D wishes he would have conserved some of that clock on those first 3 plays but that is knowing that you were able to move the ball effectively on the next 2 plays. You also have to remember that to that point in the game, Cook only had 2 passes go for over 10 yards (a 14 yarder in the first to Kings and the Fowler juggling catch and run). How confident could anyone have been that he could have popped off a 2 minute drive going into that wind?
3. We can all agree that winning on Senior Day is a major priority for many reasons, but at what point should some of the starters take a seat on the bench to keep them healthy for the league championship game? Specifically, under what circumstances should Connor Cook come out, and who should be the first one in to replace him?
Starters should come out only when the outcome of the game is certain. Now that doesn't mean you can't give a guy here and there a break. But in college football, wins are what matters and not what could happen the following week. What happens if we have this plan to pull guys to stay healthy and it causes us to lose to Minnesota, and then we go into the B1G Championship Game and lose to OSU? Now you have lost twice in hopes of winning one. I guess it is my view that you can't take eggs out of one basket and hope that it fills another one. Win the game in front of you. As for Cook, I think you have to keep him in until you know the game is in hand or at least 2 scores up in the 4th. Then Maxwell is the obvious replacement. Senior Day gives him the nod and I wouldn't be surprised if there is something game planned to get him in the game. I mean if Coach D went out of his way to allow Maxwell to take the Victory Formation snaps against U of M, do you put it past him to not get Maxwell on the field for Senior Day?
Every senior on the team has contributed in one fashion of another to the success of the program during their stay at MSU. If the game is well in hand, then substitutions should be liberal to give each senior a moment in the spotlight, if only for a series or 2. It should not be considered a preventative measure, but rather a just reward. Once the seniors have played, given adequate time and good game circumstances, the entire bench should be put in. If it is a hotly contested contest, then the seniors will understand. After all, they have bought in and want the win as much as anyone else on the team.
The first person going in should be at QB and should be a senior. 'nuff said.
It's very important to win this game, and MSU will have their hands full with Minnesota. It's possible the starters will have to play the whole game.
But it still seems like a three-score lead in the fourth-quarter should bring a few guys in off the bench. I would not like to see Cook and Bullough (among others) still pounding it out if the score gets to 20-3, or 24-7, or 28-10 in the fourth.
The consensus seems to be that Maxwell would come in for Cook since it's Senior Day, but at some point I would like to know if there is any reason for O'Connor to stay with the program. If things go very well, it's an opportunity for Maxwell to both come in, and then come out as a graduating senior.
It's harder to feature every senior coming out on their last play in football than it is in basketball, but the team has been trying to match that equation in recent years. I hope to see all of the seniors get a chance at the equivalent of kissing the "S" in Breslin on their way out, but we will need a good lead on the scoreboard in order to do that.
4. What's up with that Mike Griffith of MLive? He seems to always take a very negative view on the MSU Football team, with articles that highlight problems instead of accomplishments, and possible risks instead of potential rewards. Is he the current leader of the "Michigan Mainstream Media Machine", ostensibly working as a beat-reporter, but functionally trying to turn public opinion against the Spartans on a regular basis?
Griffith showed up last summer and played it pretty level for awhile, but the better the football team has played, the more his focus has turned negative. Consider the undertone and implications of these recent headlines:
- "Michigan State Defense Slipping"
- "Gophers Looking to Knock Off Michigan State"
- "Michigan State Basketball Hasn't Made Believers out of Everyone"
- "Michigan State Safety Kurtis Drummond Was Dinged by Northwestern Last Year"
- "Northwestern Quarterback Kain Colter Could Present Some Problems for Michigan State Football"
- "Michigan State Defense Humbled, Hungry to Atone for Miscues"
All of these headlines appeared while the football team was winning every game by double-digits, rising in the polls, wrapping up the division title, and topping almost every defensive category tracked by the NCAA. Griffith is the beat-reporter for the Spartans, meaning he is assigned to write stories for the people who follow Michigan State. He has been using his position to knock MSU around in subtle ways right up until this week, when he seems to have settled down just a bit.
Mike Griffith? Public enemy #1? No way. I will be the first to admit that I do not agree with the articles that Mike writes or the opinions he puts out there. And his headlines often leave you wondering what he is up to. But Mike is a fine writer that generally has some sound reasoning for his opinion. I do think he tries to compare the MSU program to "past programs he has covered" too much and is caught up in the media machine of having to produce to clicks by any means necessary. But I have never thought he was a fan or an enemy of the program. The other thing is that when you talk to Mike or interact with him online, he seems to have a different tone than his articles often take.
One final point to this. Mike will often point out things that we do not want to face as fans. Pointing to those facts or opinions that are embedded with truth can be tough to stomach when you don't want to hear them. I remember getting chewed on this past off season when I said that MSU's running game would be better post LeVeon Bell. It was my opinion that Bell was a consistent runner and you had to give him the ball but he lack of ability to break longer runs limited the teams running game. I didn't say Bell wasn't a great RB or that he hurt are running game. Just that he put a ceiling on it. This season we already have more yards and more TD's on the ground than last. A lot of fans didn't want to hear that Bell could possibly hold us back when he was so important to the offense last year but how many fans are changing their tune now. If you want to point at anyone that is part of the "Michigan Mainstream Media Machine" look no further than Josh Slagter. He is supposed to be MLive's statewide sports guy and was one of the former beat writers for MSU sports (in fact I think his profile pick on MLive is him on press row at the Breslin Center). I can't tell you the last time he said a kind word about MSU let alone posted an article about the team. But U of M articles and praise though...
I am not totally convinced M.Griffith has a negative view but rather puts a negative spin on everything. His recent AP vote put MSU at No. 8, for example. Part of this has to do with the business model to which MLive operates. Get controversy, get hits, get advertisement revenue. MLive writes the paychecks, so guess what happens...
I have seen other MLive writers present a much less biased view of MSU football on the UolM side, which surprised me. What I mean is the premise in the question could be accurate.
Of late, and we can thank dUMp the chUMps for this at least in part, a move towards center by Mr. Griffith, a shift more or less in the right direction. We have also seen concepts, vocabulary, phraseology, and data/statistics being incorporated by the MLive writers, too, including Mr. Griffith.
So, while I can agree that there is a negative spin, the conjecture that it is intended to influence public opinion is less likely that it is merely to stir the pot for the financial benefit of MLive.
