Danielson just won't quit hating the spread.

Clearly it is better to rely on recruiting and developing a Tim Tebowesque QB than developing a talented OL. 

I find that odd considering he has Johnny Manziel's semen all over his face

I can barely stand listening to the CBS guys. It's a SEC propaganda team

Its hard to watch and listen to but this is some good football.

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.

It's not the spread its being able to balanced. Danielson must've not have been watching when Bama was in their Pistol sets..

...is a man of negotiable opinions.

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?

Danielson is such a Bama homer it's pathetic.

I don't think half of these guys even know what they mean when they say "the spread." Do they mean RR's option read spread? The pistol that the illini used a few years back? Maybe the new england patriots' pro-style spread? There is no actual "spread" - there are many offenses that fall into the category of trying to spread the field, but they are so diverse.



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.

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) 

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.

The talent decides the outcome. Bama has basically NFL level talent with probably 16 kids in the field with legit pro chances. Florida was killer with their power spread staffed with a host of superstars. Scheme barely matters if every position can physically whip the competition.

We have 4 starters (DR, Funchess, Lewan, Ryan) with pro futures + a bunch of solid D1 player = 8-4 season. Exactly why we need McQuay and Treadwell.

He actually didn't say what you quoted, I don't think. My recollection is that he said "elite teams run this type of offense", as opposed to "need to run this type of offense".

Having the Best skilled players and a good coaching staff is what's most important, regardless of scheme. I get tired of spread vs pro-style, and does defense win championships or is it a quartback league. It all works if you have more talent than the opposition. The only question is does the spread offense help teams with less talent?

Neg-bang away but I've always been a fan of Gary since he was the QB for Detroit. Talk about a thankless job.

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.

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.

Of the spread may have something to do w his kid not getting to start at NU ('Cats not Corn') because Barnett left and Walker came in and immediately installed the spread. Danielson quickly became last string behind Kustok etc. and eventually quit. I have no inside info about what Gary thought of that situation but I would think that would fuel a parent's hatred.

I am just going to go ahead and keep hating Gary Danielsen. 

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. 

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.

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.

The irony is that Gary would have prospered in a modern spread offense  

Doesn't he know?