Danielson just won't quit hating the spread.
So Alabama finally sticks to the run and starts pounding Georgia. Now is the time for Danielson to say something stupid "I've been saying this for 5 years the elite teams need to run this type of offense" Who is elite? Was Florida elite when Tebow was there? He thinks if you have a dominant line you can wear teams down and you don't need tempo to wear teams down.
No Gary you don't need tempo to wear a defense down.....IF YOU HAVE 5 NFL STUDS ON YOUR O-LINE!!!! Hopefully we have 5 seasoned NFL studs on our line in 2 years. It won't matter what offense we run then. Everyone will be a genius then.
All sorts of offenses work well if you run them right... just stop it Gary.
Danielson is gong to take up the "computers are a fad" argument next.
December 1st, 2012 at 7:31 PM ^
Clearly it is better to rely on recruiting and developing a Tim Tebowesque QB than developing a talented OL.
December 1st, 2012 at 7:38 PM ^
both. Florida's o-lines with Tebow, were very talented units.
December 1st, 2012 at 8:01 PM ^
They had multiple Pounceys, for crissake.
December 1st, 2012 at 7:34 PM ^
I find that odd considering he has Johnny Manziel's semen all over his face
December 1st, 2012 at 7:34 PM ^
I can barely stand listening to the CBS guys. It's a SEC propaganda team
December 1st, 2012 at 10:06 PM ^
December 1st, 2012 at 7:40 PM ^
December 1st, 2012 at 7:44 PM ^
I don't get why some of these fogeys conflate the spread with a quick tempo. A spread can go slow, and a more traditional offense can go fast. Even Air Force was running up tempo against M this year.
His false dichotomy was particularly hilarious. If you have a good OL, you don't need tempo to wear the defense down. So, wouldn't a good OL at a higher tempo wear the defense down even more? Is there a rule that says OL above a certain skill level are required to huddle?
Yeesh.
December 1st, 2012 at 7:57 PM ^
December 1st, 2012 at 8:00 PM ^
...is a man of negotiable opinions.
December 1st, 2012 at 8:55 PM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 12:20 AM ^
He didn't call it a great decision. He just said Saban had a play he liked and he ran it and it worked. Then for a while he explained how adding 2 to a number works.
December 1st, 2012 at 8:14 PM ^
He said that if it had failed Alabama would have had a two point lead during Georgia's last drive. Anyone think Alabama wouldn't have gone for two again?
December 1st, 2012 at 8:17 PM ^
Danielson is such a Bama homer it's pathetic.
December 2nd, 2012 at 10:27 AM ^
He might like Bama (I think it's more a respect thing for how they play), but I wouldn't call him a "homer". Danielson was born in Detroit, went to school at Purdue, and covered state of Michigan sports for years before making it to the national stage, first doing B1G with ESPN/ABC, then moving over to CBS, which happens to conver the SEC.
December 1st, 2012 at 8:21 PM ^
If you ask me, winning is predicated on (1) having talented players who have talents that fit the system being run, and (2) being diverse enough in whichever offense you run so that it is not easy to stop you.
People tend that think that the spread (presumably referring to what rr and florida circa tebow ran) fails at #2 because you can stop it by stacking the line to take away the run. This is only possible of you have a spread qb who is not an adept thrower (sadly, think Denard). Many spread qbs fall into this category (great legs, sub-par throwing) so people assume that the spread is easy to stop when a team manages to successfully defend it by taking away the run. However, when a spread is run with a qb like cam newton, RG3 or tebow (behind a quality line) it is as hard to stop or harder than any offense. The biggest problem is that finding spread qbs who can throw like newton, rg3 and tebow (he was decent in college) is very rare.
December 1st, 2012 at 8:25 PM ^
Not sure how a blatant Bama homer like Daniel-san could draw a conclusion like that since they keep getting gashed by SEC QBs that run the spread (Tebow, Newton, Manziel)
December 1st, 2012 at 8:26 PM ^
December 1st, 2012 at 8:32 PM ^
He's promoting the football that's broadcast by the network that employs him. When he was working for ESPN/ABC he was slobbering over the B1G; his entire set of football opinions shifted overnight when he took the CBS job. If he switched to Fox over the offseason he'd spend next year drooling over Oregon's offense.
If it's hard for him to make a coherent argument, maybe it's because the conclusion is given and he's trying to back into the argument. He can't usefully define "the spread" because if he did he'd run into the Manziel problem.
December 1st, 2012 at 8:34 PM ^
December 1st, 2012 at 9:01 PM ^
December 1st, 2012 at 9:23 PM ^
December 1st, 2012 at 9:52 PM ^
December 1st, 2012 at 10:40 PM ^
December 1st, 2012 at 10:45 PM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 12:07 AM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 10:28 AM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 8:21 AM ^
December 1st, 2012 at 8:53 PM ^
December 1st, 2012 at 8:59 PM ^
...but I also definitely thought there was a "need to" in there. And it also would fit better with what he said in the next couple of sentences.
December 1st, 2012 at 9:05 PM ^
That said, what I suspect he was getting at is actually what we are seeing with our strategy transition and what schools like Stanford are doing: going back to the attitude that we can attract top end legitimate NFL potential talent by playing the systems used in the NFL. That's certainly what Alabama does and I think we're seeing that with some of our defense recruiting with Mattison's system in place. I think that's what he actually meant, but he couldn't have said it much worse (no matter which way he said it).
December 1st, 2012 at 9:16 PM ^
"I've been been saying this for five years: the elite teams have to run this type of offense. There's too many great offensive linemen and running backs that can pound the ball, protect your quarterback, wear down that defense. There's more ways to wear down a defense than just by going up tempo. You can beat 'em in submission."
That actually explains to me why we heard it differently, too. We probably both interpreted the use of "have to" differently and recalled the quote in the context if how we interpreted "have to".
December 1st, 2012 at 9:00 PM ^
December 1st, 2012 at 9:08 PM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 3:08 AM ^
Gary deserves credit for sticking in the NFL for well over a decade in spite of limited skill, but he is an open and unabashed Michigan hater.
December 1st, 2012 at 10:40 PM ^
I'm in the minority here at mgoblog, but I actually kind of agree with the sentiment, insofar as I do think that good west coast offenses can achieve more consistent and predictable success than do spreads. It just seems like spread offenses are much more prone to flop games than are offenses predicated on good between the tackles running and a solid west coast passing attack. It may not be as exciting or entertaining, but if you look at the last few national championship games, it seems to be true. You can still "spread" out the offense and be dynamic with 4 WR sets as well in such offenses, just look at Ok St. This is just one man's opinion though, trying to add a different opinion to the standard fare around here.
December 2nd, 2012 at 1:51 AM ^
So, that doesn't hold together. Oklahoma State's offense has virtually nothing in common with the West Coast Offense, at least as defined by Bill Walsh at Stanford. So either the distinction between pro-style and spread are meaningless, or you're willing to acknowledge that the spread is a very effective offense.
December 2nd, 2012 at 3:12 AM ^
pro-style and west coast are not necessarily the same thing. I wouldn't call what the Lions or the Pats run a west coast offense by any stretch, for example. I think teams like Okie State run pro-style spreads, which is probably the future as the NFL evolves to become even more pass oriented.
December 1st, 2012 at 11:25 PM ^
Bama lost to an A&M team that had one player who could start for Bama. They almost lost this game to a Georgia team that had one and maybe two players who could start for Bama. Saban buys a lot of great football players, and then plays not to lose. It works for him most of the time, but I don't think Saban's scheme would result in more than a 7-5 or 8-4 record if he he was playing teams with ten or more players who could crack Bama's starting lineup.
December 1st, 2012 at 11:46 PM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 12:37 AM ^
I am just going to go ahead and keep hating Gary Danielsen.
December 2nd, 2012 at 12:38 AM ^
SEC has won 6 straight national titles and dominate other conferences in bowl game head to head record over the past 10 years. They have the most talent.
Danielson tries to extrapolate this to scheme as most SEC teams run pro style offense and defense. I don't think such a view can be proven true, but it also can't be refuted, especially since the style continues to win.
December 2nd, 2012 at 1:49 AM ^
Florida won two SEC titles, two national championships and went to a 3rd SEC title game running an offense virtually identical to RichRod and Chip Kelly's. The notion that pro-style is better than spread is impossible to support.
Alabama happens to have the best talent and happens to run something that can loosely be described as "pro-style," though it also uses a lot of spread concepts. But if Bama ran the Oregon offense, they would be just as dominant, if not more so. Danielson just doesn't know what he's talking about.
December 2nd, 2012 at 10:14 AM ^
Sorry, this is way off. "Florida won two SEC titles, two national championships and went to a 3rd SEC title game running an offense virtually identical to RichRod and Chip Kelly's."
Do you watch football? Or is it that if something is labeled a "spread" you just consider it all the same. Urban Meyer's spread essentially used a QB as a fullback hybrid and involves much less read option run than RR's. At Auburn Cam Newton ran a passing spread with running elements because he is a mobile QB.
Danielson was dead wrong about Auburn's "spread" not being good enough to win a championship that year, in their epic comeback game against Alabama.
However, until you realize that the offenses of RR, Kelly, and Meyer are not virtually identical, and that "spread" is a football term describing a myriad of schemes, your analysis is garbage.
SEC has the best offensive and defensive lineman and win the trenches and therefore win championships. Nobody is saying you have to line up in a bunch formation with two tight ends to win championships, even that moron Danielson.
December 2nd, 2012 at 1:39 AM ^
considering 3 of the National Title teams referenced ran up-tempo "spread" offenses
I guess the salient point is that Danielson is a tool along with 99% of the commentators out there.
December 2nd, 2012 at 1:47 AM ^
It's just a fact. This is a man who, during a montage of Tebow at Florida once pointed to Tebow as evidence the spread could never win in the SEC. He made similar comments in praise of Johnny Manziel. From what I can tell, both he and Lundquist think there are two plays in football: "The run" and "The pass." Seriously, it's hilarious.
December 2nd, 2012 at 3:15 AM ^
The irony is that Gary would have prospered in a modern spread offense
December 2nd, 2012 at 3:34 AM ^
Doesn't he know?
December 2nd, 2012 at 9:18 AM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 9:41 AM ^
any and every argument about the spread. . . in some minds.