Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

I do not know that much about football, however, I do know the object of the game is to get that oblong pigskin into the endzone. Why is it that BGSU critics complain about the "gimmicks" that the Falcons use to win games. I have read other forums that claim BGSU doesn't play straight football and the chances of the players moving on to NFL gameplay are slim. So please bear with my ignorance and enlighten me. thank you.

Complaining about "gimmicks" to win games is just sour grapes. What they're referring to is using spreads and "non-traditional" formations, which isn't much different than at least half the offenses in college football anymore.

As for the NFL comments, they have a point. NFL offenses aren't usually set up to run the way our spreads do, so while we may have the athletes to thrive in OUR setup, they might lack in areas necessary for a more traditional NFL set. Josh Harris' apparent struggles in the NFL are a pretty solid case-in-point.

The spread offense is more complex then 90% of the offenses in the NFL...

as for the offense being gimmicky... if you don't like it... beat BG... Boise... Miami... or whoever runs the offense... otherwise keep your mouth shut...

BG makes the most of what it has... as for these NFL loaded BCS schools... its amazing how many players do so little for their school despiute all the publicity that they get. MAC Coaches get more from their players because the players aren't treated like royalty and must work harder to achieve their success.

I am no football strategist and have never claimed to be, but in Josh's set on Saturday I did notice that the Browns ran one play with five wide (maybe four with a TE - not too sure). Josh was under center, but it was pretty cool to see him in an empty backfield again relying on his arm and legs alone. If I recall correctly that was the play that the WR totally flubbed over the middle. Looked like a bad route to me the way he cut over.

Anyhow, call me whatever names you like and accuse me of whatever you wish, but not only do I not think Josh's series was very bad at all, but I think he has a much better shot at making the Browns' depth chart than most people are giving him credit for. I thought that run he made when the pocket collapsed on him was EXACTLY the reason why he needs to be a part of this system. No other quarterback in camp has nearly his combination of agility/speed, no matter how innacurrate his arm is. For a team like the Browns with a terrible O-line and showing no commitment to draft one (draft WR's, wtf not? ), why they are looking at THREE pocket passers for the depth chart is not only mind-boggling to me, it just plain stupid. If Josh isn't good enough they need to find a scrmabling quarterback who is. I'm not the only one I know who feels this way, either.

The spread offense doesn't have to be complex, believe me I coach a spread oriented high school team. BG's is very complex though, and it came from Magner's mouth in saying that a lot of things are the same. The spread just makes the defense cover more of the field, what's wrong with that?

TG1996 wrote:What they're referring to is using spreads and "non-traditional" formations, which isn't much different than at least half the offenses in college football anymore.

Didn't a certain NFL team run a similar so-called gimmicky offense.



The college game, just like the NFL, goes in cycles and before you know it you see more spread formations in the NFL.

Huh, what do you know, I think I just saw a spread formation, no wait it was just a putty cat.

The "doesn't translate into the NFL" argument is losing steam almost daily with revelations of how similar the schemes are in principle. Alex Smith getting drafted #1 essentially took the argument away from coaches who try and use negative recuiting that way.

Plus, in college, it's rather irrelevent how it translates. Like redskin said, just try and stop it (which most can't).

These are the same short sighted peoples decendants who said the forward pass would ruin football, and that goal posts belonged ont he goal line.

Life is miserable when your game plane reads, 1st down off tackle, 2nd down sweep, 3rd option or take a big risk and pass.

MACMAN wrote:These are the same short sighted peoples decendants who said the forward pass would ruin football, and that goal posts belonged ont he goal line.

Life is miserable when your game plane reads, 1st down off tackle, 2nd down sweep, 3rd option or take a big risk and pass.

*Uncle Tressel's life must be pretty miserable then







*I take no responsibility for any retaliatory comments that cause this thread to be moved and/or banned.

The spread offense is more complex then 90% of the offenses in the NFL...

I know little about BGSU's offense, but I guarantee it's not as complex as an NFL offense.

How could any college offense be more complex than a pro offense when the pros all have much more experience and probably get to practice with their coaches four or five times as many hours a year?

That said, no doubt BG's offense is complex for a college outfit and Bret Beilema's (UW D-coordinator) game planning will be a difficult chore.

My personal opinion is that the spread will become a "standard" type offense over the next few years. Right now it's transitioning from a gimmick.

Wisconsin faced several spread offenses last year. It's not like a total surprise.

BigAppleBucky wrote:

The spread offense is more complex then 90% of the offenses in the NFL...

That said, no doubt BG's offense is complex for a college outfit and Bret Beilema's (UW D-coordinator) game planning will be a difficult chore.

I will agree with our Wisconsin friend. I don't think our offense is even close to as complex as a pro offense is. I do, however, think that it is vasly more complex than most collegiate offenses, especially those at many of the BCS big boys.

An NFL offense is much more complicated than most football fans can really imagine. Every play is really just a guideline when its called in the huddle. That individual play will be tweaked by just about every player's pre-snap reads. The WRs will run different routes based on the coverage look. The OL will block differently based on how the DL/LBs line up. The TE will make presnap reads to determine whether to stick with his route or block; same for the RB/FB. QBs have to see everything that the other positions are seeing to know where his protection will be and where his receivers will be.

Our offense is very complex with WRs changing their routes, and the QB making the read, but I don't believe for a second that it's as complex as an NFL offense. I do think that the complexity of our offense, like that of other mid-major programs, is helping these mid-major QBs when they make it to the NFL. Guys at the big schools are so used to play-action then chuck it deep, they haven't made all the pre-snap reads that are routine in the NFL & in offenses such as ours.

To quote the best band of all time, Tesla, from 1991's "Psychotic Supper" cd...

"Call it whacha want, doesn't matter to me!"

We win....let 'em call it whatever they want.

429 hours....

Falconfreak90 wrote:To quote the best band of all time, Tesla, from 1991's "Psychotic Supper" cd...

"Call it whacha want, doesn't matter to me!"

We win....let 'em call it whatever they want.

429 hours....

Exactly Freak. It works for us , so if BCS "know-it-alls want to complain about it let em. Its not really surprising since most BCS schools are on the receiving end of all this "gimmickery" spread which lends to some of these upsets their all so scared to death of.

"Gimmicks" are fun. I also like many aspects of the traditional I-formation with more TE's in the mix, I just can't stand to watch it for 3 hours of all that. I like to us use a mix of both worlds if possible and which it appears Coach Brandon might be doing.