5* Rodney Hood commits to MSU!!!

[smootness]

Uh, am I the only one missing something here? Todd clearly didn't say the spread is a terrible offense or will never work in the SEC. All he said was that the offense is not what matters, it's the coach running it. I assume this was in response to all the people assuming that just because we now had a spread offense, we were going to light people up.<div>
</div><div>And he's right. Florida is proving that now. Mullen is a very good offensive coach, Addazio and Croom are not. It doesn't matter the scheme. Mark Richt is a very good offensive coach, and he doesn't run the spread at all. It's what it is. There are teams who run the spread who are successful and some who aren't. There are teams who don't run the spread who are successful and some that aren't.</div><div>
</div><div>Seems to me Todd was dead on. Coach34 is trying to put him in a corner by highlight a couple of phrases, but unfortunately for him, he actually quoted the entire thing, meaning we can read it in context. And it's clear Todd didn't say what Coach34 is claiming he said.</div>

 

[smootness]

Just realized that was before we hired Mullen, so I assume it was in response to all the people claiming that the reason our offense was terrible was because it was the West Coast Offense, and if we could just get the spread, we'd be set. Which just makes Todd even more right.<div>
</div><div>Florida and LSU have probably the two worst offenses in the conference, save for maybe Vanderbilt. And they run completely different offenses. Auburn and Arkansas have arguably the two best offenses in the conference, running completely different offenses.</div><div>
</div><div>The spread has the potential to be a great offense, but you still have to know what you're doing.</div>

 

[Coach34]

Uh, am I the only one missing something here? Todd clearly didn't say the spread is a terrible offense or will never work in the SEC. All he said was that the offense is not what matters, it's the coach running it. I assume this was in response to all the people assuming that just because we now had a spread offense, we were going to light people up.<div>
</div><div>And he's right. Florida is proving that now. Mullen is a very good offensive coach, Addazio and Croom are not. It doesn't matter the scheme. Mark Richt is a very good offensive coach, and he doesn't run the spread at all. It's what it is. There are teams who run the spread who are successful and some who aren't. There are teams who don't run the spread who are successful and some that aren't.</div><div>
</div><div>Seems to me Todd was dead on. Coach34 is trying to put him in a corner by highlight a couple of phrases, but unfortunately for him, he actually quoted the entire thing, meaning we can read it in context. And it's clear Todd didn't say what Coach34 is claiming he said.</div>

and then Todd's response. If he isn't calling the Spread a "gimmick"- then what is being called a gimmick?

 

[smootness]

Ok, I went back and read it. He wasn't calling the spread a gimmick in the sense that it was basically just cute little trick plays. He was just making the point that it isn't about scheme. People were trying to argue that simply by changing the system, we would instantly have a better offense. He was saying that the key is developing players no matter the system. You're getting stuck on the word 'gimmick' because you're trying to make him be wrong, but he isn't.<div>
</div><div>saddawg made this comment: "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; ">Therefore it makes sense to me that it is easier to fix the offense by going to the spread than to fix it by recruiting." That's one of the most ignorant comments I've seen regarding offense.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; ">
</span></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 12px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;">You don't 'fix' and offense simply by changing it. You do it with better players and better coaches, which is exactly Todd's point. Texas Tech wasn't successful because they threw the ball all over the field, they were successful because Mike Leach is an offensive genius. That said, I actually do believe that system was gimmicky. It didn't stack up against top defenses. You have to be able to have a consistent running game, generally a good power running game, to be consistently successful against good defenses. Luckily, Mullen understands this.</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 12px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;">
</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 12px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;">But again, all you're doing is pointing out the word 'gimmick' to make him look bad. Read what he was saying; he wasn't wrong.</span></font></div>

 

[Coach34]

I was saying that if we ran a bunch of gimmick plays out of whatever offense- be it spread or west coast offense, it wasn't going to make us better. And judging by our myriad of trick plays have gone wrong the past two years, I would say I'm correct. Remember the two jump passes that completely failed? Remember the halfback pass from Perkins against Georgia that got picked? Because remember what we were doing was "boring" and "uncreative"? People knew what was coming. Fact is those players could barely run a counter play. I was saying that our coaches were being conservative for a reason. That reason being we had no talent.-

no you werent. You were replying to Saddawg. And the only thing he mentioned was going to the Spread because the I is too predictable. You clearly are referring to the Spread as a gimmick. I'm not the only one that sees this as evidence by other replies in this thread.

And you COMPLETELY gloss over the fact where I mentioned McCorvey and Croom calling the plays would not make us running the spread better than what we were doing and the fact that we have to have good players to run a successful offense. AND IT'S RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOUR DUMB17 FACE. I was saying the coaches that we had were not going to make us better regardless because they sucked as coaches. Unless you were somehow expecting Woody McCorvey to become a great play caller overnight, and I know that wasn't the case.

Well, let's look at us now- we're as one dimensional as ever. Why? Because our QB with an alleged cannon can't make a 17 screen pass. We have Chad Bumphis- a great WR. Can barely get him the ball. Our offense will not take off until we get a QB that can pass the ball, an o-line that can pass protect, and better WR's. I think we have the backs. Our offense right now is Relf and Ballard for the most part. How has running the spread made Relf a better passer? It hasn't.

And as Saddawg told you- getting in the Spread would help us. You are too predictable in the I. We average 100 more yards per game than we did under Crooms. We average 7-10 more points per game than we did. Auburn is even more one-dimensional than we are. We run it 67% of the time, Auburn runs 73% of the time. Wonder if their fans are bitching about being too one-dimensional? Bumphis is 6th in the SEC in receptions and is about to have one of the best seasons in school history for receptions. That doesnt equal "barely get him the ball". It all comes back to Saddawg telling you the Spread would make us better, and you calling it a gimmick.

Our offense will get better- but it's not because we're running the spread. It's because we're recruiting better players. It's because we're developing our QB's, and we're developing o-linemen, we're bringing in good WR's. It's because we have competent people running the show.

Our offense was much better last year- even before we added a bunch of new players.

Is our offense better- absolutely. Why? Because we have better coaches (NOT McCorvey as I mentioned) and now we are about to get better players. Once we do that- we can run all the gimmick plays we want.-

we could have run the Spread under Crooms- remember what we ran to score our only TD in the bowl game? We marched down the field running a few Spread plays. <span style="text-decoration:underline">Our staff chose not to run it</span>- but they could have studied it and run it. Hell, McCorvey never failed running it- it won him a bowl game.

But that said- let's go back to the original topic- Yes, starting a poll in hopes that you can get a bunch of people to agree with you so that you can rub it in my face to say that "I'm right!" is a ***** move. So, yes, you are a *****.

So asking the opinion of other people is is a ***** move? Really Todd? C'mon sweetie- don't be like that because DS and some others jumped in and told you that you were wrong also. A ***** move would have been to change my answer if other people had chimed in to agree with you. But if you will notice- nobody has stepped up and said they agree with you. They all respond that "longest drive doesnt matter" and "who cares? Relf isnt accurate"...basically everybody is telling you that you are a dumbass for saying it. And you are. And you know it- thats why you are throwing this little ***** fit.

It will be ok Todd. But enjoy our gimmick offense- it beats the **** out of running the I and West Crap offense

 

[Coach34]

everybody else sees it. He called the Spread a gimmick.

And Smootness, thats just one thread. I could only go back to 2008. There were plenty of other times he said it before then. I started calling a switch to the Spread back in 2005. Saddawg and a couple others joined me, but most here said it was a gimmick offense and Urban Meyer would never win at Fla. The sixpack motto was "that Utah **** wont work in the SEC"....

"saddawg made this comment: "Therefore it makes sense to me that it is easier to fix the offense by going to the spread than to fix it by recruiting." That's one of the most ignorant comments I've seen regarding offense"

Really? Were we better last season because we suddenly had better players? We had better coaching, but the Spread was very much a big reason we got better. AD finally had the chance to work in some space, instead of being all bunched up like we were in the I. If Dan Mullen had coached us in the I formation all last season- we wouldnt have had near as much success. So yes, it was easier to fix the offense by changing it as opposed to recruiting.

 

[Todd4State]

to try to rub it in someone's face is a ***** move. And apparently more people agreed with me, which makes it hilarious. Your little ***** move failed miserably. Oh, that's right- people hate you, so they voted for me. Right..... If you're SO sure that you're right, why do you think you have to try to prove it?

I don't need a bunch of people to chime in and agree with me because I'm smart enough to defend myself. Think about that.

Also, yeah, DS disagreed with me. And you know what? That's fine. Difference is he doesn't try to act like a dick because he thinks he's right no matter. Difference is I respect DS because he treats me with respect. You disrespect me and my opinion, and I'll disrespect you. Maybe he was trying to show you that- I don't know, you'll have to ask him.

 

[Todd4State]

1. No, I didn't say the spread was a gimmick. I said running all kinds of gimmick PLAYS wasn't going to make us better. Don't know how many times I have to say that. You think I said that the spread was a gimmick because you want to "win the arguement". You highlight the word "gimmick" but there's one very, very key work missing there- and that word is guess what? SPREAD. And like the ***** that you are, you are trying (and failing again) to put words in my mouth by highlighting a word. I will say this, if I thought the spread was a gimmick- I would have said so. But yet, in that very same thread, I also said I wasn't against the spread. Doesn't that seem odd to you? And apparently there are some people that ARE able to comprehend what I said. Just because you interpret something wrong, deosn't make you right.

2. See point number one. And I think having Cam Newton, the front runner for the Heisman supports my theory that having great players makes an offense better. So, no, I don't think Auburn fans are complaining about having the Heisman front runner. Oh, and having Gus Mahlzahn an offensive genious also supports my theory as well. I think Vandy is running the spread right now as well- how's that going for them?

3. We didn't add new players, but we got better coaches. Again, look who was right. You kind of glossed over that- I wonder why.

4. Wasn't that Wes Carroll doing that on his own? And you say the coaches "chose not to run the spread". OK, I can buy that. But here's the thing- don't good coaches fit their offense to their players? And since Croom didn't, doesn't that make him a bad coach? And if he was a bad coach do you honestly think he could have run our offense if it was a spread as well as Dan and Les are?

Oh, and welcome to MSU Rodney Hood.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

Oh, and having Gus Mahlzahn an offensive <span style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;">genious</span> also supports my theory as well.

Thank you Todd.

 

[idog]

where else would Hood fit into the spread? pretty manic here this morning.