I've thought about the 2015 MSU Vs. OSU football game on and off on bored days. I have a question to you guys about it.

Do you think if Cook plays, we win? We, of course will never know because that's impossible to know. However, I wonder if Dantonio game plans it the same way? With the offensive line and the running game shrinking the game clock. Keeping the OSU offense in check. With cook do we throw the ball more? Does it lengthen the game? Do our players lose focus on controlling the line of scrimmage? I know we can't prove it, and I'm not here trying to say we were better without Cook. Certainly would not have been conference champs without him. I'm not sure we win that game with him however. I think him, with a healthy shoulder changers our game plan. But who knows. Please speculate wildly here.

[tw]1680014892722528260?s=20[/tw]

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Connor cook isn’t why they only gave Ezekiel Elliott the ball 9 times in a rainstorm. The result of that game was more on urban Meyer than anything we did really.

Good point.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:12 times, sorry. Looked it up. Anyway it should have been closer to 29

OSU had a lot of weapons they didn’t use. Here’s my point:   are they able to run more plays on offense if Connor cook plays for us? Does the game become longer than it did? We tied the game up at 14 with a 75 yard Drive, and we ran 16 plays. I don’t think more than two of them were passes. It took a lot of time off the clock at the time. We forced their offense to sit on the sidelines, freezing their butts off in the cold rain.

It was a brilliant drive and so was our first touchdown . We relied on the run game, and by doing so it’s shortened the length of the football game because the clock was always running.

To your point, I don’t believe urban had his best game as an offensive play caller. And I can’t disagree with it. What the hell was he thinking?