Okay, now that they're gone.
For the purposes of this thread, I'm going to assume that GB is not going to suddenly become a good coach and run the table this year or win the MAC next year. This probably means that we will have new coach in the next year or 2, and possibly new coordinators.
My question is this. In that scenario, would you rather see a set of coaches come in and continue with some form of the spread, or would you rather see a more traditional offense be implemented with the new staff?
Personally, I like the spread a ton when it's done like we did it in 03. Run, pass, trickery, the defense never knew what was coming. The spread can be a great tool to even the playing field against the Ohio States and Michigans of our mid-western world. However, there are many that feel a more traditional offense based on running the ball ad play-action might be more suited for this area/weather/conference. I'm not necessarily one of them, but I see the argument. The weather gets nasty and cold and the spread has the tendency to bog down a bit. It's not an inevitability, but we've all seen it happen.
Another interesting factor - with spread offenses becoming so prevalent, are defenses now geared more towards stopping it? Would we be going back against the grain and gaining an advantage in the MAC by going to a more traditional offense?
Yet another factor -- would going away from the spread hurt recruiting at the skill positions? I think it definitely would. I've heard countless skill recruits say they were drawn to BG by the offense and getting their opportunity to produce within it.
I don't see why we can't keep the spread formations, but just use it when the situation calls for it. I think the more varied we can be, the better, whether that's out of the spread or a more traditional set. I'm not sure which side of this I would be on yet, but I was interested in hearing some other folks' opinion on the subject.



