Joe Montana Might Know A Little Something About Quarterbacking

The Fake Lonnie Finch · September 24, 2009

Looks like Joe and I share more than a birthdate. He's also not sold on the spread. Speaks of the getting under center versus majority shotgun. Also, mentions failures of college spread QBs in the pros.

But, what could Joe possibly know? I mean, he's never even coached football. How could he possibly comment on the spread if he hasn't coached? Right?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...ol.37a0841.html

"In the spread [in college], you may play against some good teams ... but they aren't all great players. Then the NFL takes all the [great] players, puts them together, and it's a little tougher [offense] to run. Everyone is so big and strong.

"I think the spread is still a few years away, if not more. They like to run the ball in the NFL. So you have to be able to get up under center." -Joe Montana

Edited September 24, 2009 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

Mean Green 93-98 · September 24, 2009

Joe isn't saying anything new here. We all understand that successful spread QBs in college often flop in the NFL.

He never suggests that a college program cannot have a successful offense running the spread.

Green P1 · September 24, 2009

So.....

UNTLifer · September 24, 2009

Looks like Joe and I share more than a birthdate. He's also not sold on the spread. Speaks of the getting under center versus majority shotgun. Also, mentions failures of college spread QBs in the pros.
But, what could Joe possibly know? I mean, he's never even coached football. How could he possibly comment on the spread if he hasn't coached? Right?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...ol.37a0841.html

"In the spread [in college], you may play against some good teams ... but they aren't all great players. Then the NFL takes all the [great] players, puts them together, and it's a little tougher [offense] to run. Everyone is so big and strong.
"I think the spread is still a few years away, if not more. They like to run the ball in the NFL. So you have to be able to get up under center." -Joe Montana

No, Joe's not sold on the spread being used in the NFL. It obviously is a success, UT, Tech, Florida, etc..., on the collegiate level which is what we are concerned about. If this was www.godallascowboys.com and the Cowboys were running the spread then your point might be on mark.

What happened to your self imposed sabatical?

September 24, 2009

Joe isn't saying anything new here. We all understand that successful spread QBs in college often flop in the NFL.
He never suggests that a college program cannot have a successful offense running the spread.

It is fallacy too. Most NFL-style QBs from college fail in the NFL too.

There are more of them and they fail at the same rate.

Green P1 · September 24, 2009

It is fallacy too. Most NFL-style QBs from college fail in the NFL too.
There are more of them and they fail at the same rate.

No way! I bet you can't even name a single one.

Quoner · September 24, 2009

No way! I bet you can't even name a single one.

Next you're gonna tell me QBs under 6'2 can succeed. Like anyone could ever know that.

Green P1 · September 24, 2009

Next you're gonna tell me QBs under 6'2 can succeed. Like anyone could ever know that.

Wasn't Randall Cunningham like 5'7?

The Fake Lonnie Finch · September 25, 2009

Um...

The Eagles Nest (formerly Non-Unt Sports)

The Place for Non-UNT sports...etc., etc., etc.

"...failures of college spread QBs in the pros...." -The Fake Lonnie Finch.

The discussion is the use of the spread and spread QBs in the pros, not college spread offenses. Knowing where you are, important. Reading comprehension, important.

Mean Green 93-98 · September 25, 2009

Um...
The Eagles Nest (formerly Non-Unt Sports)
The Place for Non-UNT sports...etc., etc., etc.
"...failures of college spread QBs in the pros...." -The Fake Lonnie Finch.
The discussion is the use of the spread and spread QBs in the pros, not college spread offenses. Knowing where you are, important. Reading comprehension, important.

I comprehended the article and your post just fine, thank you. But what is your intention in posting it? You hint that you are alluding to past posts you have made regarding the spread. Based on your past history of arguing against implementing the spread at UNT, it seems at least possible that you are trying to use this article to bolster your position in that regard. Or maybe you are just trying to say college spread QBs don't always do well in the NFL? As I said in my initial response, "Joe isn't saying anything new here. We all understand that successful spread QBs in college often flop in the NFL."

UNTLifer · September 25, 2009

I comprehended the article and your post just fine, thank you. But what is your intention in posting it? You hint that you are alluding to past posts you have made regarding the spread. Based on your past history of arguing against implementing the spread at UNT, it seems at least possible that you are trying to use this article to bolster your position in that regard. Or maybe you are just trying to say college spread QBs don't always do well in the NFL? As I said in my initial response, "Joe isn't saying anything new here. We all understand that successful spread QBs in college often flop in the NFL."

Yep, so what was your point in posting this other than to stir the pot? I thought you were a fan of another college team now anyway?

greenminer · September 25, 2009

The only way you can read this as an anti-Dodge post is if you want to read it that way.

Fake's anti-Dodge sentiment is preceding this, no doubt. But I don't particularly care of the "stir pot" analagy; as if to say we have no choice but to be stirred.

greenminer · September 25, 2009

Probably the best historical perspective of the spread in pros is Spurrier's Florida teams. While the scheme has evolved the last 20 years, it is still consistent to say the QBs have a difficult time adjusting...some receivers too.

I always thought it was ironic that his running backs did so well in the NFL.

Edited September 25, 2009 by greenminer

Mean Green 93-98 · September 25, 2009

The only way you can read this as an anti-Dodge post is if you want to read it that way.
Fake's anti-Dodge sentiment is preceding this, no doubt.

:huh:

Quoner · September 25, 2009

Probably the best historical perspective of the spread in pros is Spurrier's Florida teams. While the scheme has evolved the last 20 years, it is still consistent to say the QBs have a difficult time adjusting...some receivers too.
I always thought it was ironic that his running backs did so well in the NFL.

Or - more people should focus on how the backs make the spread work and the impact the threat of the run has on opening up everything else. Our pal LongJim likes to harp on that.

forevereagle · September 25, 2009

Arizona of last year and NE of two years ago may disagree about running being necessary to win. Arizona had an almost non-existent running game last year and seemed to do ok. NE hasn't had a running game in years, and they seem to find ways to win. They may not run the spread per se, but they seem to share many of it's philosophies.

Quoner · September 25, 2009

Arizona of last year and NE of two years ago may disagree about running being necessary to win. Arizona had an almost non-existent running game last year and seemed to do ok. NE hasn't had a running game in years, and they seem to find ways to win. They may not run the spread per se, but they seem to share many of it's philosophies.

Well - let's look at those Cardinals and their magical playoff run:

Game One vs. Atlanta

32 passes for 357

28 rushes for 86

Game Two vs. Carolina (remember, Delhomme turned it over FIVE times, too)

32 passes for 215

43 rushes for 145

Game Three vs. Philly

28 passes for 267 yards

29 rushes for 102 yards

Superbowl

43 passes for 374 yards

12 rushes for 33 yards

Hmm...

Quoner · September 25, 2009

The 2007 New England Patriots finished 6th in the league in rushing offense.

forevereagle · September 25, 2009

The 2007 New England Patriots finished 6th in the league in rushing offense.

NFL.com shows they were 13th in the regular season.

Besides, this whole argument is kind of off considering that the spread is still predicated on balance between running and passing. Our own Cam Montgomery is ranked 37th in the nation right now running out of the spread.

forevereagle · September 25, 2009

Well - let's look at those Cardinals and their magical playoff run:
Game One vs. Atlanta
32 passes for 357
28 rushes for 86
Game Two vs. Carolina (remember, Delhomme turned it over FIVE times, too)
32 passes for 215
43 rushes for 145
Game Three vs. Philly
28 passes for 267 yards
29 rushes for 102 yards
Superbowl
43 passes for 374 yards
12 rushes for 33 yards
Hmm...

And if you look at the stats for the regular season, the Cardinals had the worst rushing offense in the league with 1,178 total yards. That is 96 yards behind the Colts who were the next worst. The reason they had some limited success with rushing in the post season is that no one knew they could since they had averaged 3.5 a carry all season. Not to be mistaken with the 3.3 yards per carry in the post season.

aztecskin · September 26, 2009

7/10 times you throw it- nope. If you're at TTech, smoo, under Hal Mumme- yes. If you play at Oregon, WVU, Michigan - no.

The argument that what you run in college will effect you in the pros? Joe Montana ran the Triple Option at Notre Dame. Big Ben ran the spread (they do alot of that at Pittsburgh but he also does the seven-step drop). Cutler ran the spread,

'Look at Harrell and VYoung and Alex Smith! They suck so the spread must suck for pros!' Nope. Maybe Harrell is too short and doesn't have a rocket arm? Maybe their is a pro-style bias holding him back? Maybe VYoung relied too much on out running the competition and wasn't much of a true quarterback to begin with? Maybe Alex Smith benefited from throwing to wide open, confused defenses in the MWC?

I think you have more of an argument by saying that quarterbacks that don't play against NFL-caliber competition don't succeed like Montana said. 'They play great teams but not great players' etc. That's why I give some credence to the SEC-is-awsome- thinking.

I'll leave you with why Tebow might not be a good pro. Not because he plays in the spread but because he is basically a fullback that tosses it to wide open speed guys. I don't buy the 'our wideouts suck' argument. Its more like "our qb can't get it there'

Quoner · September 27, 2009

And if you look at the stats for the regular season, the Cardinals had the worst rushing offense in the league with 1,178 total yards. That is 96 yards behind the Colts who were the next worst. The reason they had some limited success with rushing in the post season is that no one knew they could since they had averaged 3.5 a carry all season. Not to be mistaken with the 3.3 yards per carry in the post season.

I got the Patriots stat from ESPN.com, so let that be a lesson to me for going there.

Yes - they did. It got them a 9-7 record and they lucked out by being in one of the worst divisions in the history of football. They won because they suddenly started doing what they needed to do to be a good football team.

My point is only that any offense is ultimately only as good as it's running game - as our most QBS. If NT could run the ball the way we did against Ball State against anyone else, Riley would not be in everyone's cross-hairs after last night's game.

Since I love the baseball more than most, AZ is the equivalent of the 80s Twins or the St Louis Cardinals of a few years ago - once you make it in the tournament, you just need to be able to play winning baseball for 3-4 weeks. I don't think many GMs decided to use the 2008 Cardinals as their blueprint for this year, although I suppose Jerry Jones and Wade will use them as a an example to rally around before the season is over.