Gary Danielson's knowledge of the game is pretty amazing.

Al Becker said:

Before we give ole Gary too much credit, remember he meets with the staff on the Thursday or Friday before the game and is provided inside information. ie: re like to run the fade on 2nd down near the goal line if the D is in this alignment or on 3rd and 4 with 3 wides we will run this or that. Makes him look like a real expert when he is really just parroting info he got from the coaches. With that said he does have unique insight at times. I have no idea why he denies the existence of momentum though, that's curious, but he says he doesn't believe in it.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree entirely. He is a quality announcer, particularly in comparison. I'm just saying the he is not relying totally on hie insight and experience when he predicts a play. he does offer good insight on technique and purposeful play calling (calling one play to set up another) for example. Just saying that his predictions come true a lot because he has been told what to expect.

Bamabuzzard said:

He's not with him any longer. Fowler is now with Herby but Fowler isn't worth a flip in that role, IMO. He doesn't have the voice nor the dramatic tone when something big happens.

Click to expand...

With Fowler, it sounds like he is just doing his job. He must love the game to have this much success in this arena, but it does not come out when calling a game. He doesn't sound bored, but it sounds like he is working instead of just going with the flow of the game and riding the emotion of the game/fans.

Bamabuzzard said:

He's not with him any longer. Fowler is now with Herby but Fowler isn't worth a flip in that role, IMO. He doesn't have the voice nor the dramatic tone when something big happens.

Click to expand...

This. Fowler bores me.

Tidewater said:

I think most of the criticism is oriented towards Verne Stumblequist who gets more names wrong that he should.

Click to expand...

^^^^ Times 1000. I know how hard it is, I tried it once a long, long time ago and quickly realized I would soon be requiring stitches in my tongue if I kept at it. But he has gotten worse with each passing year, with not just players names but team names as well. Not sure if he even knows where he is at times.

You know as much as I don't like him I say the Palmer, collingsworth, Brando, and jaworski are worse than him

My biggest issue with Verne is that he's not great at play-by-play or color commentary any more. He gets by on enthusiasm alone. Don't get me wrong, I love his enthusiasm, and he still probably knows more about football than I do, but he's not able to keep up with the speed of the game, leading to the "Stumblequist phenomenon."

I personally love Gary's commentary. Although he does talk a little more than ideal, that's probably as much a decision from the directors and central office as anything. You wouldn't want to just hear the sounds of a boring football game, right? Anyway, I think Danielson is solidly at #2 on my list of NCAAF color commentators behind only Herbstreit. As for play-by-play guys, I've struggled to find anyone that I like, although partly that's because solid play-by-play commentary should be unremarkable except in pivotal moments. Exceptional play-by-play paints a picture, but that's particularly rare to find, and so I'll always be satisfied with unmemorable play-by-play and reasonably insightful color commentary.

Chukker Veteran said:

I agree.

But sometimes he just can't be impartial...for instance...

When Blake hit Drake on that long ball to open the game, Gary's remark was "Oh Jeez..." as if to say "I hoped Florida could do better than that against Bama."

Maybe he wasn't pulling against Bama...although it sounded like he was...but his analysis is good enough that I don't really care who he pulls for.

Click to expand...

You may be right, but I "heard" (interpreted) that differently. I took it to mean, "Oh, Geez. That's a blown coverage right there." I didn't take it as being partial (as in, for Florida or against Alabama). I took as a simulated reaction as the coach for the affected team. I agree with the OP, I recognize their faults but I enjoy their game calling as well as or better than anyone else's. As has been pointed out, Danielson is very insightful.

I had to shush my family on Saturday because they kept talking in between plays, which is when Gary does a lot of his analysis. I really enjoy it.

Bamabuzzard said:

I didn't take it that way. I don't think it was an "Oh jeez" as in "Dang I really hate Alabama scored" but rather "Oh jeez, look what just happened here."

Click to expand...

Yes--I liked it when Gary expressed the jeez-- it meant he just saw a blown coverage and an exploitation by Bama.

I thought he was in the tank for Florida. Every time Florida had an issue he was searching all the angles trying to prove it was all right.. ......

bama_wayne1 said:

I thought he was in the tank for Florida. Every time Florida had an issue he was searching all the angles trying to prove it was all right.. ......

Click to expand...

He saw Tim Tebow on the UF sideline and got the thigh sweats.

REBELZED said:

My only gripe with Gary is he always seems to be so negative. Instead of it being an awesome play by the offensive player, it was a terrible play by the defensive player.

He can be overly harsh and he likes to harp on mistakes, "You just can't do that" and "That's just a bad play there." The negativity just gets a little old.

There's no doubt that he's as knowledgeable as they come, though. I feel like I learn at least one thing from him every broadcast.

Click to expand...

It's probably a reflection on me but that's one of the things I like about Gary. My first thought on a play is that it's usually the result of a mistake on someone's part. I like that he's not afraid to say when he feels that's the case.

Al Becker said:

Before we give ole Gary too much credit, remember he meets with the staff on the Thursday or Friday before the game and is provided inside information. ie: re like to run the fade on 2nd down near the goal line if the D is in this alignment or on 3rd and 4 with 3 wides we will run this or that. Makes him look like a real expert when he is really just parroting info he got from the coaches.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you point out, but other analysts don't seem able to apply that information to game time the way Gary does.

CraigD said:

I agree with what you point out, but other analysts don't seem able to apply that information to game time the way Gary does.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but GD spent a few years as a pro QB, and I'm not sure if any other analysts in the college game have those creds.

twofbyc said:

Agreed, but GD spent a few years as a pro QB, and I'm not sure if any other analysts in the college game have those creds.

Click to expand...

I am sure that's the reason he has the analytic skillset that he has.

Al Becker said:

Before we give ole Gary too much credit, remember he meets with the staff on the Thursday or Friday before the game and is provided inside information. ie: re like to run the fade on 2nd down near the goal line if the D is in this alignment or on 3rd and 4 with 3 wides we will run this or that. Makes him look like a real expert when he is really just parroting info he got from the coaches. With that said he does have unique insight at times. I have no idea why he denies the existence of momentum though, that's curious, but he says he doesn't believe in it.

Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. No way coaching staffs give away that kind of information. They may give away specific players on their team they will be using.

It wouldn't be a bad idea IMO if we paid him to do some self scouting.

I agree with the others that he sometimes gets wordy. What do you expect though? He is paid to talk.

I guess Verne has reached the level of lovable old nutty uncle for me. It doesn't bother me that much anymore.

I don't really dislike Gary Danielson, per se, but I absolutely loathe Verne and Gary. Heck, I loathe Verne all by himself. It seems to me that there's something about their chemistry to where Verne's inane-ness and annoyances rub off onto Gary. Someone on here once described them as "two guys at a bar" half-talking and half-commentating about the game they're watching. It's a pretty fair analogy - as long as you extend it to include the aspects that Verne is the "weird uncle" character who tends to get too excited about everything, showed up at the bar at 9:00 am, and hasn't stopped (at least) sipping something alcoholic since he got there while Gary is a very knowledgeable former player who tends to enjoy listening to himself talk exponentially more and more the more he drinks.

I think that if Gary were partnered with someone who is a little more "professional" as a play-by-play guy he would be better and much more liked - excepting, of course, when he goes all man-crush on a particular player. I'd really like to see him paired up with a second, knowledgeable color guy who actually understands what Gary is talking about and between whom the "excitement" portion of the commentary can take place, leaving the play-by-play guy there to just be the play-by-play guy.


My dream-team of announcers in the booth would look something like this:
Play-by-play guy: Brad Nessler, Ron Franklin, Rece Davis, or perhaps Chris Fowler. (Yes, Chris Fowler - though he is the fourth option.)
Color guys (2 out of): Kirk Herbstreit, Gary Danielson, Todd Blackledge, and/or David Pollack.

This way, the play-by-play guy's job is just to do two things: the actual play-by-play calling and returning the "conversation" back to the game when necessary. Too often, the play-by-play guy has to (or at least thinks he has to) try to "fill the air" with a little humor and/or back and forth with the color guy, gets carried away, and gets stuck in "baseball commentator" mode.

While I do not like Jesse Palmer - who, at times, single-handedly makes the commentary almost unbearable - I do like the dynamic of the booth on the Thursday Night games when it's Rece Davis, David Pollack, and Jesse Palmer calling the game. David and Jesse give the "technical" commentary and provide the "excitement" in the booth while Rece tries to maintain some decorum. Rece does the play-by-play, typically keeps the actual game from getting lost in the conversation, and "tosses" the microphone to David and Jesse when it's time to fill the air.

I would really like to hear Gary Danielson as part of that type of a dynamic when calling a game, as I think he would thrive in it.

Al Becker said:

I don't disagree entirely. He is a quality announcer, particularly in comparison. I'm just saying the he is not relying totally on hie insight and experience when he predicts a play. he does offer good insight on technique and purposeful play calling (calling one play to set up another) for example. Just saying that his predictions come true a lot because he has been told what to expect.

Click to expand...

Can you really imagine Coach Saban telling Gary to "watch out for X play when we get in X formation?" Not a chance in you-know-what of that happening.

Gary is just an ardent student of the game. He studies the film, watches the practices, and picks up on tendencies probably as well as many coaches out there.