Which games did Penn State lose this year because of coaching?

ALTOONA, Pa. -- We get a lot of great questions in our weekly Live Qs at 5 feature, and you can hop on over there today to ask your question. Occasionally, one of the questions really jumps out, and I have so many thoughts on it that I decided to write a whole story about it.

Many thanks to poster Sammy C for the inspiration today, as he asked: How many games this year do you think that coaching was largely responsible for the loss?

It seems like a relatively simply question, but wow, it's really a loaded one.

So, here goes:

1. Definitely Michigan State, 100 percent

The more I've thought about this game, the more I consider it the worst coached game of James Franklin's tenure.

The coaching in this game was embarrassing. The Nittany Lions only lost, 30-27, despite all the coaching and physical mistakes, and I believe Penn State is the better team. Such as, if they played 10 times, I'd take the Lions to win seven.

I'll get to the offensive buffoonery in a moment.

First and foremost, Penn State wasn't ready to play the game. It was obvious. And that falls on the coaches. Michigan State had just gotten destroyed by Ohio State, 56-7, and surely the Spartans felt humiliated. They were ready to come out and unleash hell at the start of the next game, and Penn State's coaches did not have the team ready for that.

The Lions' defense hadn't allowed a touchdown in the first quarter all season. But Michigan State drove the field twice for TDs and a 14-0 lead in the first. That falls on Brent Pry, who did a marvelous job all season, but did not have his unit ready to go as the Spartans got the ball first and drove 76 yards in eight plays for a score.

Is it possible Pry was distracted as, during the week, he had been interviewing to become Virginia Tech's new coach? Absolutely. I have as much respect for Pry as anyone, and he's a true pro. But human nature would tell you that if you're about to land that kind of job, then it could take away some of your focus from your current job.

Down 7-0, then came Franklin's awful fourth-down decision. Just horrendous. The Lions faced fourth-and-1 at their own 47 on their first possession of the day, and instead of giving his offense a chance to gain some confidence -- and giving his defense more rest -- Franklin decided to punt. That weak decision set the tone for the day.

Jordan Stout came up with a tremendous punt that Drew Hartlaub downed at the 1. Just phenomenal special teams work. But on Michigan State's first play, Kenneth Walker III broke free for 35 yards, changing field position. How on earth did Pry not have his defense ready for the best running back in the country to get the ball at the 1-yard line?

That single play changed the game dramatically, because if the Lions hold Sparty to a three-and-out, they would have gotten the ball back in great field position. Instead, Walker's long run jumpstarted a 99-yard TD drive that made it 14-0.

Those two drives, you can pin a lot of the blame on Pry.

But Penn State still could have won the game, as it came back to take a 20-17 lead.

There's just simply no excuse for the offensive playcalling we saw late in the contest. When you talk about things like one guy outcoached another guy, that is EXACTLY what happened in this game.

Mel Tucker knew his pass defense was atrocious. It has been all year. After giving up one long touchdown pass, Michigan State's defenders were on the sideline griping at one another, as the ABC sideline reporter said one lineman was yelling that the secondary play was "pathetic."

Tucker made an adjustment by putting only six defenders in the box and daring Penn State to run the ball. And the Lions took the bait.

That's what lost the game.

Instead of giving up long TD passes, Tucker was content with letting Penn State have some decent runs here and there. He gave looks that he figured Mike Yurcich would see and try to take advantage by running the ball, and that's what Yurcich did.

Look, maybe that kind of thing would work against a normal defense. But Michigan State's defense is so godawful against the pass that Yurcich and Franklin should have realized immediately what Tucker was trying to pull, ignored it and kept firing the ball down the field. Instead, the Lions kept running the ball in key spots, and it didn't work (61 yards rushing total), because their running game was terrible all year.

I don't know if Franklin was trying to prove some kind of point in this game. What we don't know for sure is who was to blame for all the runs -- Yurcich or Franklin? Yurcich calls the plays, but Franklin likes to weigh in when he sees fit from a strategic standpoint.

I have criticized Yurcich heavily, but in this case, I honestly believe Franklin totally blew it. He was so hell bent on establishing a running game given the looks Michigan State presented -- again, falling for Tucker's bait -- that he lost site of the fact that the Spartans are so terrible against the pass.

This was a monumental collapse in judgment, by either Franklin or Yurcich, or both. They both have been offensive coordinators, and their failure to understand what would have worked against Michigan State and failure to avoid falling into Tucker's trap were egregiously bad.

Again, embarrassing.

So yeah, coaching totally lost that game. Because if Penn State would have thrown it 50 times instead of 34, it probably would have beaten Michigan State by double digits. And if you're wondering why I haven't even mentioned all the snow that day, it's because I don't think it even mattered, since both teams were throwing the ball well.

2. Ohio State loss was not about coaching

Just the opposite, in fact. Franklin and his staff did a really good job in this 33-24 loss, which was close throughout. The Buckeyes were just the better team.

3. One peculiar thing about Michigan loss

The Wolverines are the better team. But Penn State did take a 17-14 lead with 5:55 remaining.

Michigan wound up scoring the winning touchdown on a 47-yard TD pass from Cade McNamara to Erick All with 3:29 left. On the play, defenders Kalen King and Daequan Hardy run into each other, allowing All to break free and take it to the house.

Here's two good looks at the play:

My question is, why was King on the field on that play, or even that series? The true freshman has a lot of potential, but he really didn't see the kind of playing time all season that we expected after his tremendous spring. Maybe I'm nitpicking, because any two defenders could run into each other on a given play, but the fact that it happened to King on the game-winning play makes me wonder if Pry should have even had him on the field in that spot.

Still, ultimately, Michigan was the better team, so I don't chalk this loss up to coaching.

4. Illinois loss was total incompetence on offense

Regulation play. Nine overtimes. Only 18 points.

Pathetic.

Sean Clifford was still ailing after getting injured against Iowa. Fine, then he shouldn't have been in this game. And if the coaches had played Christian Veilleux instead, I believe Penn State would have won.

Was Veilleux ready at this stage of the season? Franklin made it seem like he wasn't when, after the Rutgers game, he said Veilleux had just improved a lot over time.

But I have to think the Veilleux we saw against Rutgers would have been good enough to have beaten Illinois. At that stage in the season, though, Ta'Quan Roberson was still the backup, despite his poor showing at Iowa.

Was the Illinois loss about coaching? I've got to get into the Iowa game to fully address that.

5. Yes, the Iowa loss absolutely was about coaching

To be fair, Penn State built a 17-3 lead because of good coaching, understanding that Clifford could come out and succeed against Iowa's defense. And he did that, slicing the Hawkeyes aprt.

But once Clifford got hurt early in the first quarter, Penn State was doomed.

Roberson couldn't even function as a quarterback, outside of one series where he ran the ball well. The offense couldn't even function without committing bad false start penalties that killed multiple drives and let Iowa get back in the game.

That was ALL about coaching for this reason: Roberson has been in the program for three years. Franklin knew what he had -- or didn't have -- with the young man as a quarterback. If Franklin didn't know Roberson was that bad, then why the heck didn't he know after all this time?

Yes, Yurcich is in his first season, but he works closely with Roberson every day. How did he not know the young man was so bad? Or that he couldn't get the cadence right to avoid all the false starts?

Yes, Iowa is a tough place to play. Yes, that was a pressure-filled moment for a backup quarterback. But it looked like the kid had never even played quarterback at all, and for that, you MUST blame the coaches. For one of two things:

1. They should have had Roberson better prepared to play, or ...

2. They shouldn't even have played Roberson at all and just gone to Veilleux.

This was week six, and Veilleux had not gotten many reps up to this point. It is conceivable he wasn't ready to play. But goodness, as bad as Roberson was, all Veilleux really would have needed to do was go in the game, get the plays off and not go backwards 15 yards on key series because of penalties.

He might not have even needed to get any first downs. Just don't go backwards and cost Penn State key field position.

Why was Veilleux not more prepared to play? Why didn't he get more reps up to that point? Franklin had said in the preseason that it was obvious who the backup should be, and that was Roberson.

But how obvious could it really have been? Because the Veilleux we all saw against Rutgers looked like a quarterback who could have held on to win the game against Iowa and also played well enough to score more than 18 points in the Illinois debacle.

Here's what I think happened.

Franklin and Yurcich decided to go with the more experienced player in Roberson and give him the first crack at the backup spot. That makes sense, given that Roberson had been there three years. But did their loyalty to the upperclassmen and willingness to give him the first crack cloud their judgment as to how unprepared Roberson truly was?

Secondly -- and this is a theory, but hear me out -- did Veilleux's legal issue getting charged with marijuana possession in June play into the whole quarterback depth chart? Veilleux was a true freshman, so did that put him in the doghouse with Franklin and Yurcich, to the point where they felt like they needed to take opportunities away from him, instead of fully letting him compete with Roberson on a level basis?

Look, that sort of thing happens all the time. And it's not necessarily bad. Coaches do have to teach young players lessons if they get into trouble off the field. But if Veilleux had not gotten into trouble, would Roberson really have gotten 90 percent of the second-team reps in fall camp, leading the coaches to believe it was so obvious that he was ahead in the race?

Coaches have to make tough decisions in a lot of areas. And sometimes it's not always about just football. In the case of Roberson vs. Veilleux, we're all gonna be left wondering what truly went on in that competition, merely because one guy looked so bad in the one opportunity he got, while the other guy looked pretty darn good in his opportunity.