Georgia Bulldogs 27, Ole Miss Rebels 13: Getting a Decision When We Needed a Knockout
by T Kyle King on Sep 24, 2011 10:20 PM EDT
in Georgia Bulldogs Football
Email
PrintI’m going to be up front with you about this: I caught virtually none of this game. My son, Thomas, who is eight years old, is playing local youth association football this year, and his team had a game at 2:00 this afternoon. We had to have him there an hour early for warmups, which meant leaving the house shortly after 12:30.
Consequently, I watched the first few minutes of this game at the house, listened to the rest of the first quarter in the car, and otherwise had to rely on text messages from my cousin to keep me up to date throughout the remainder of the game. Since I saw very little of it, I had to rely upon a peek at the box score, which, frankly, reveals that the Georgia Bulldogs utterly dominated the Mississippi Rebels in this game.
The Classic City Canines led by large margins in first downs (25-8), total offense (475-183), passing yardage (268-149), rushing yardage (207-34), and time of possession (38:36-21:24). The Athenians converted nearly half of their third downs (8 of 18), posted a Brian VanGorder-like second-half shutout, more than doubled up the Rebs in yards per pass (10.3-5.0) and yards per rush (3.7-1.3), and committed half as many penalties (4-8) and half as many turnovers (1-2). Aaron Murray connected on 17 of 26 aerial attempts for 268 yards and a couple of touchdowns, while Isaiah Crowell led the way with 147 rushing yards on 30 carries.
It is no surprise, then, that Georgia routed Ole Miss by a final score of . . .
Wait, what? 27-13? Is that all?
After an eleven-play, 61-yard Bulldog drive ended in a 36-yard Blair Walsh field goal, Todd Grantham’s defense forced a three-and-out to set up a seven-play march covering 53 yards and ending in a touchdown. Murray was picked off early in the second quarter, but the defense again rose to the challenge, holding the Oxonians to six yards in three snaps and forcing another punt.
Starting three feet in front of their own end zone, the Bulldogs covered 99 yards in 240 seconds. The Georgia possession was highlighted by Crowell’s 29-yard scamper on third and nine, setting up a 69-yard completion to Malcolm Mitchell. Murray found Orson Charles in the end zone on the eighth play of the drive to make the score 17-0.
The Rebels responded with back-to-back big passes by Randall Mackey, who found Nickolas Brassell for a 37-yard gain and Donte Moncrief for a 38-yard touchdown, the latter on a reverse handoff. Having seized a measure of momentum, Houston Nutt’s squad successfully executed an onside kick to reclaim possession near midfield. The Georgia D was having none of it; Abry Jones sacked Mackey on first down, and Bacarri Rambo broke up a pass on second down before intercepting another on the ensuing snap. Three plays later, Aron White hauled in a pass from Murray for 35 yards and a touchdown.
An 81-yard return of a 57-yard Drew Butler punt made the score 24-13 just before halftime, so Georgia led only narrowly a game in which the visitors had outplayed their hosts. That trend continued after intermission, as the Bulldogs’ first four second-half drives ended in a punt and a trio of missed field goal attempts. Walsh twice came up short from 48 yards out, and a third extended drive went for naught when he missed a 35-yarder.
Fortunately, there was no let-up in the defense in the final 30 minutes. On their first five possessions of the second half, the Rebels punted thrice, turned the ball over on downs, and tossed another interception to the resurgent Rambo. Following the break, no Ole Miss drive lasted longer than six plays or traversed more than 21 yards. The game ended happily, with Walsh earning a confidence-boosting measure of redemption by making a 43-yard field goal for the only points of the final two quarters and Cornelius Washington sacking Mackey on the game’s last play.
Given the Bulldogs’ recent struggles, it is hard to argue with an SEC road win in which the Red and Black dominated the opposition. Nevertheless, this game was more frustrating than satisfying, for three reasons:
- Mark Richt’s teams historically have dominated Mississippi, on the scoreboard as well as on the gridiron. Since 2001, the ‘Dawgs have gone 5-0 against the Rebels, never allowing more than 17 points in the process. Georgia scored more than 30 points against Ole Miss three times in Coach Richt’s first four encounters with the Oxonians. Judged against the standard set by the previous series meetings of Coach Richt’s tenure, the 27-13 final margin represents a subpar performance by Georgia against Ole Miss.
- Three lengthy marches ended in missed field goals, which is maddening enough on its own merits, but a solution would appear to suggest itself when your placekicker doesn’t have his best stuff and your offense is converting on 100 per cent of its fourth-down attempts and your defense is holding on 12 of 15 third- and fourth-down attempts by the opposition and your top three tailbacks all are averaging four or more yards per carry. This was the game in which to roll the dice a little more and go for it. The Rebels remained in this game at halftime due to gutsy play calls; the Bulldogs demonstrated admirable boldness by attempting an onside kick against South Carolina. The problem wasn’t that too many field goals were missed; the problem was that too many field goals were attempted.
- While 2-2 is a darned sight better than 0-2, this fact remains a fact: Georgia has not beaten a Division I-A team that finished with a winning record in its last 18 games, and there is little likelihood that either of the last two weekends will change that fact. What Georgia desperately needs is a quality win over a decent opponent. This was a decent win over a lousy opponent, which represents both a regression from what we have seen the last two weekends and an omen that does not augur well for the next four Saturdays, on each of which the Red and Black will face a team better than they one they faced today.
Two favorable observations might fairly be offered on behalf of this performance: Georgia roundly outplayed the opposition, and Georgia won. It is difficult, though, to focus on those two facts to an extent that permits us to ignore this equally valid reality: Georgia did not defeat this team even remotely as convincingly as the Bulldogs ought to have, which makes this result more worrisome than encouraging as a daunting October slate looms just over the horizon.
Go ‘Dawgs!
231 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not short, actually...
Walsh just missed them. Missed every one of them, period.
Bobo apparently said they took their foot off the pedal in the second half. What in hell for, I will never know…the defense was playing great, yes, but did the shananigans of the second quarter and the Sakerlina game teach them nothing???
Mississippi SUCKS. And we will need to be a helluva lot better next week.
"Came up short" is an expression, albeit perhaps an unfortunate one in this instance.
It wasn’t intended literally. With respect to the rest of your points, though, we are in complete agreement.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Sep 24, 2011 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, sorry, I misinterpreted you there.
On me. :)
We have Brandon Bogotay on scholarship
does he not deserve a chance, maybe a week or two letting Walsh get his head straight and rest?
http://sportsandgrits.com/
We know Walsh is a damn good kicker.
Setting aside the question of whether it was appropriate to attempt field goals at all in each instance, I think it was a good coaching decision to send Walsh. Walsh needs confidence in himself, and I think it helps him if our coaches show confidence in him.
by NCT on Sep 25, 2011 9:44 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I'm not suggesting anything permanent
just that maybe a week or two off to clear his head, get in the film room, and see if there’s any tweaks to his technique he made, or needs to make, to correct whatever the issue is. Maybe it’s letting Bogotay handle kickoffs while Walsh focuses solely on putting it through the uprights (the swing and aiming spot on the ball are different in those kicks). But we’ve got a 2nd kicker using a ship, use him. If we didn’t have Bogotay, I’d feel differently. But why waste the ship we you can get use out of it?
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Sep 25, 2011 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Walsh is a senior...
… so if he can’t get his head right in a few days, a week off isn’t going to help him, I don’t think.
I really don’t think Bogotay is that good, either. He blasts ‘em during pregame practice, but virtually every time he’s come into the game to kick a long-ish (40+ yards) field goal, he’s choked. Bogotay has the leg… I just don’t think he can take the pressure.
by vineyarddawg on Sep 25, 2011 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I think getting his technique straightened out and corrected...
was what takes the week or two.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Thank you.
The problem wasn’t that too many field goals were missed; the problem was that too many field goals were attempted.
I love the way you looked at stats and they suggest a killing. We went up 17-0, looked great, hit the brakes. I am so drained by it. We should have scored in the 40s. Bobo is full of it to say they “started calling conservatively”. That’s either crazy or he is just making up an excuse.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Actually, there's a third possibility, and that's the one that disturbs me the most:
He may be telling the truth. I find that appalling. Does Todd Grantham tell his defense to stop trying as hard to keep the other team from scoring in the second half? No? Then why would it ever occur to Mike Bobo to tell his offense to stop trying as hard to score?
I understand running the ball to milk the clock to protect a lead, but you do that when you’re up big late, not when you’re up 17-0 early.
It’s so frustrating, because it’s so simple: Something is working. Keep doing it!
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Sep 24, 2011 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Kyle, we are mind melded
I swear I was walking around talking to myself practicing for a podcast and I said outloud “Does CTG get to ‘depend’ on the offense and take it easy?” It makes me sick. We will never develop a winning mentality if our coaches dont have one themselves. If the starters are on the field, then we should be all out. And if we are being conservative, why the hell is Isiah in the last series just to get hurt when we are running out the clock?
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Yes!
I agree with both of you and am glad to see I’m not the only one feeling this way.
by Evidently Normaltown on Sep 25, 2011 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I could see a scenario where
they felt comfortable at half time, secure in the fact that our defense wasn’t going to get beat, and the taking of the foot off the pedal was more play it safe, take no risks, and lots of hand offs. Not that I like it, but when you have a strong, opportunistic defense like ours, there’s something to be said for simple, boring, yet mistake free and effecient offense.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
See the Brad Johnson led Bucaneers Super Bowl...
the Dilfer led Ravens Super Bowl, the Krenzel led Buckeyes, the McElroy led Bama, etc.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Sep 25, 2011 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions
You seriously want to compare our defense, that has put together maybe 2 really great games in the last 5 years, to those amazing NFL Super Bowl Championship defenses?
Seriously?
I think he's just saying
that an O that wastes some opportunities is not the end of the world. Many great teams have won with such an O. Only very rarely does a team win with shaky D.
The analogy fails horribly when you are comparing it to teams with some of the most dominating defenses in this history of NFL football.
You can argue that the “Dilfer Led Ravens” (uh no. That’s the Ray Lewis Led Ravens") had one of the historically most dominating defenses in the history of pro football.
I’m sorry but that’s just a bogus comparison.
Our defense is getting a lot better, but we aren’t anywhere near that level.
We don't need to be at that level
We need to be something close to BVG-era level. We’re competing against college teams, not NFL teams. And when our D is consistently ranked in, say, the top 15 in scoring, as it once was, then a sputtering high-potential O will still win a lot of games.
Not that I’m satisfied with a sputtering O. I’m more “video game” than I care to admit sometimes. But from the perspective of winning games over the long haul, and from the perspective of moving forward, I think we’re wayy overreacting to yesterday’s O inconsistencies.
I agree we don’t need to be at that level. But comparing us to those teams is a little outrageous.
Personally, I’m not as concerned about the O itself as what it says about our coaching staff.
Isaiah Crowell running the ball to do nothing but kill clock and lose yards in that last series was just stupid.
Constantly shrivelling up and not going for it on 4th and short was stupid and gutless.
I’d honestly be less worried about things like dropped passes and other fixable things that the continued head scratching way Bobo mishandles the offense.
This is where I tend to agree with you,
I think we have great players and a good O, but we are consistently mismanaging our O. There is a trend of misusing players. I am concerned about what these kids are learning from the 4th quarter play calling. I don’t see Coach Bobo as someone that is leading this team. I see him as someone that is saying, “If you just do what I want it will work.” When I want him to evaluate strengths and weaknesses and use them instead.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Exactly.
The mismanagement of talent has been EPIC over the last 5 years.
Our teams suck, and then we get a gazillion studs into the pros. WTF?
[*] We have guys playing the wrong positions
[*] guys playing at the wrong times
[*] little guys running between the tackles
[*] fast guys not getting the ball in the flat
[*] guys with bruised ribs killing clock at the end of the game..
[*] guys who cant break tackles playing on offense instead of defense
[*] coaches punting/going for FGs when down, field position and our D makes it better to go for it
[*] OC who thinks balance is an end, rather than a means to an end.
[*] OC who is absurdly predictable.
[*] OC who thinks its ok to shut things down in the 2nd quarter vs. an SEC team in THEIR stadium
[*] … insert your own 100 problems …
Honestly, I must say I agree with all of these bullets.
I will say, however, you cant just bring Samuel to pass block, and leave Crowell in to run. That would be very obvious. Samuel, however, does not have my vote in the TB position. I am not sure he is a football player at this point as much as really big, strong guy. He hasnt delivered any hits and he doesnt pump his legs, which should be a massive advantage for him.
“Fast guys ball in flat” – absolutely. In fact, I would say this is the cornerstone of poor offensive play calling. If we would have done it with Herschel in 81, we would have had back to backs.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Samuel
he’s not a bad blocker, and not a bad receiver. He’s not a natural ball carrier, but I’m not so sure what he’d be at LB either. LB’s need vision to know where the space is they need to fill. They need to be able to run through contact, shed blockers and have the hips to make sharp cuts in tight spaces. It’s similar to the tools he’d need and we seem to agree he lacks for RB. I say DE, but with the way he takes contact, I’m not so sure he could get through SEC OTs once they get a hand on him.
FB and the lone back in a shot gun may be his best spots. The vision issue isn’t a big one for a FB, nor is the lack of hips. We’ve got Crowell though, who will be taking as many carries as he can from here on out. Thomas looks better, not really “good” but better and like he can carry the rest of the load. And if we keep going more shotgun so Murray can see the field and spread his passes around, I think Samuel, while not ideal or a great choice, is at least serviceable in that role. As a shotgun TB, his blocking and catching the ball are pluses, and when running he’s attacking a spread out line so holes are easier to see.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Sep 26, 2011 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You really wanna skip over the entire point of that comment and make a gross exaggeration of the comment?
http://sportsandgrits.com/
You really want to compare UGA to NFL Super Bowl Champions that had amazingly kick ass teams and awesome coaches?
If you want to be this obtuse, there's no point in discussing it with you
http://sportsandgrits.com/
I’m being obtuse by taking DIRECT issue with the SPECIFIC terms of your analogy?
Just because someone hangs their tongue out of their mouth while playing basketball doesn’t make them like Michael Jordan.
Your comparison of our current ugly win to the style of wins of amazingly great NFL teams, with brutally dominant defenses, was just completely WAY OFF THE MARK.
Those teams also had a massive culture of winning.
We’ve got NO BUSINESS comparing ourselves at all to those teams.
Just FYI Muckbeast, I am on your side in many ways. However, we got to remain civil and calm.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Thank you, tankertoad.
Yeah, the “everything has always sucked and everyone’s an idiot but me” routine from Muckbeast is getting really old. The Rangers100 comparison gets harder not to make every week.
Go 'Dawgs!
Wow. Good thing I’m not doing anything like your straw man there, TK.
The other guy made a personal attack… called me a name (“obtuse”), and somehow *I*’m the one getting a smackdown?
For serious?
I took issue with his ARGUMENT. He personally insulted me (a fact I just let roll off me, and never mentioned until now that I’m the one getting accused of being uncivil).
His post was ad hominem. My post was ad rem. Since there are so many lawyers here, I’m sure someone can translate.
Lets keep things in perspective please.
And lets get real here. He just compared us to the 2000/2001 Ravens… one of the most dominant defenses in the history of the NFL.
That’s a terrible, terrible comparison and it has nothing to do with me saying “everyone’s an idiot but me.”
What did you call me?
Dude. You really need to lighten up.
by vineyarddawg on Sep 25, 2011 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions
See the post below,
and get off your high horse. “Obtuse” was an apt description of your repeated inability to grasp the simple and obvious point of the statement you are taking offense with as described below.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
As Xon said above, we aren't on their level...
but thankfully, we aren’t trying to win a Super Bowl either, so that doesn’t matter. We’re trying to win the SEC East, and a strong defense, with a smart, mistake-free offense, has been a formula to do just that several times. Our defense, when healthy, just might be that good. We’ve got the pieces for it if our LBs can continue to improve, Robinson and Ogletree get healthy soon, and the DL and DBs keep playing like they have been. That is a defense good enough to get us to Atlanta in early December if we can make minimal mistakes offensively. As boring as it may be, short passes and lots of Crowell can get us the points we need, if we combine it with improved special teams (i.e. Walsh getting his head out his butt and the coaches can get their head out of theirs on the stupid trickery), we’ve got the defense and playmakers in the return game to win a bunch of ugly games, and keep winning.
It’s not a DIRECT comparison to those teams. It is using them as an easy and obvious example of a successful STYLE OF PLAY, that style being one that focuses on being ultra conservative offensively so that a powerful defense can hold while a couple of key playmakers give you enough points to win.
But make your extremists attacks as you will.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Sep 26, 2011 8:09 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Another Bobo headscratcher
And the comment about how they thought the zone read was going to be successful when we spread them out and how that actually came to fruition? I saw a lot of those go for 2 or 3 yards and we were begging in the stands for them to mix it up.
- is for real.
by Lawdawg567 on Sep 24, 2011 10:46 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Yea, that zone read comment was like from another planet.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
In addition to your well-considered points, Kyle...
our receivers apparently need to learn how to catch the ball again. Four or five dropped passes, including the one to Charles that hit him right in the hands and then hit the ground before being incorrectly ruled an INT by the idiot referees in the replay booth.
Sloppiness, thy name is UGA.
That plus AM being a touch off was not a good combo.
These guys just need to go out to a field alone and play some pitch and catch, loosen up, feel comfortable.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Thanks for that, both of you.
Obviously, those are things that don’t show up on the stat sheet.
I’m not surprised to hear that Aaron Murray was “a touch off.” He’s been a touch off all season, to the point that it now seems fair to call it a sophomore slump. Four straight subpar games—-five, actually, going back to the Liberty Bowl—-starts to look like a trend.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Sep 24, 2011 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Don't tell Xon "dont show up on the stat sheet". )
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Why not?
I have never argued that stats tell us everything we need to know. I have on several occasions clarified myself to hold that this is not the case, in fact.
That said, yeah, a lot of the “intangibles” talk that people throw around in sports is nonsense, but not all of it is.
Just a little joke at you out of respect Xon; you and I have had some great debates.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Ah, OK
I’m not gonna lie. I am worn out by the negativity right now. It’s why I left the game thread today, actually. But if I’m in the minority, I’m in the minority.
I know that the solution to all of it is the same for everyone. We need to keep winning, so we all know what to root for. Thank goodness we’ll never disagree on that.
I can say this:
I have a long standing record for not liking CMB as OC and how we have been doing business. I have never been anywhere close to a “fire CMR”. All they are doing now is fueling my evidence and fueling the bandwagon “fire CMR” crowd.
I dont want ugly wins, because they result in ugly loses against quality opponents. I want this team to learn to play for 60 minutes with the switch set to “on”. Not “sometimes”.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Ugly wins were, again, a regular fixture from 01-05
They did not correlate to ugly losses against quality opponents at all. We tended to win ugly against a lot of inferior opponents, and then also “rose up” against the big opponents.
I’m just saying the history doesn’t bear out that we’re doomed against good opponents because we don’t step on the throats of weaker teams.
For the record, I always want to win 70-0. Rare is the game that feels “complete” and dominant from start to finish and leaves nothing to be desired. But the imperfect games that we win are still plenty of fun, so it’s all good.
I started to respond in depth to this, but you win the battle of attrition.
01-05 is not anywhere near where we are now. We dont have David Green. We dont have the confidence. CMR brought finish the drill and an amazing coaching staff. He was intimately involved in the game. We wont ever have another David G ever. There is no way to compare that time to this time. Our opponents have upped their game, we havent. And we didnt win a NC during that early time period either, because our ugly wins translated into losses to UF or some other critical game.
And I dont need our ugly wins to look ahead to the rest of this year, I have our ugly losses already at hand. A complete football failure against BSU, and gave the game away to SC. The evidence at hand with two losses and an ugly win is this team will not win against a serious opponent. We havent done so since 2009, and even that year wasnt so pretty.
I tell you what, we win out, we beat UF, I will post a front page apology and declare a all in the energy bus for me post. I will specifically lay out every where I was wrong and how I was wrong. But the evidence, today, here, now, is that this team can not and will not beat anyone serious. And the east is so bad it we may end up in Atlanta.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
ABSOLUTE TRUTH
“And we didnt win a NC during that early time period either, because our ugly wins translated into losses to UF or some other critical game.”
^^ This. A thousand times, this ^^
That right there is why consistently winning ugly eventually fails you.
2002 and 2005 losses to Florida robbed us of at least one NC.
My coach in college had a great expression: “Don’t give life to a team that doesn’t deserve life.”
When you do give life to a team that doesn’t deserve life, eventually it bites you in the ass.
Man, that would have been the most epic Rose Bowl ever.
And the winner would have had a sort-of legitimate claim to be the best team in the country.
by vineyarddawg on Sep 25, 2011 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions
That's why it didn't happen. It would have made the BCS look bad.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
but it didnt threaten the NC
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
the games sold out, got good ratings, and the system continued strong
I wouldn’t call that “pretty bad”.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
I agree, UGAVike...
… but can you imagine an Illinois-Hawai’i Sugar Bowl?
I don’t think the Superdome would have been half-full for that abomination.
by vineyarddawg on Sep 25, 2011 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I doubt Illinois would've gone to the Sugar
The Fighting Ron Zooks got the spot mostly because the Rose Bowl wanted to preserve its oh so glorious historic match up. Had we gone to the Rose Bowl with the Rose Bowl’s pick (and the Sugar Bowl’s blessing), the Sugar would’ve then likely have taken Mizzou, Kansas, or West Virginia. MAYBE Arizona State.
The 984 Has Spoken!
How about Tennessee?
They obliterated us.
How about USCe?
I’m sorry, but no team that is as good as we thought we were at the end of the year chokes that badly to Tenn and USCe.
No way a Martinez coached defense handles USC or any of the other real top 4 teams.
We had 2, TK.
2 brutally pathetic chokes.
Both of them were to UNRANKED teams.
Penn State lost to #4 ranked Alabama, at Alabama.
Not really much of a comparison between the 2007 Dawgs and the 1982 Nittany Lions.
So did every other team that was in consideration at the end of the year in 07
07 was the weird “2 losses is good enough” year. LSU had 2 losses as well. Right?
by Xon on Sep 25, 2011 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yes, everyone had several "brutally pathetic chokes"
that year as Muckbeast wants to call them. We were no different. His comparison between us that year and teams of other years is pretty pointless. We didn’t have to beat those other teams to win a title, we had to beat 2007 teams. And with the exception of maybe Southern Cal, no one was gonna do that in a BCS Champ game if we didn’t piss ourselves against SC or UT earlier in the year.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Agreed, Mr. Sanchez.
There’s no doubt in my mind that, if that 2007 team had made it to the SEC Championship Game, it would have beaten LSU and gone on to win the national title.
Go 'Dawgs!
Tennessee almost beat them,
and the only reason they didn’t is because of gift picks when they reached the goalline. LSU that year may be the worst national champ of my short adult life.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Don't try to revise history, Muckbeast.
Losing to Florida did not cost us a national title in either 2002 or 2005.
In 2002, if we had beaten Florida, Georgia would have been 12-0 after the SEC Championship Game, and would have been ranked third behind unbeaten Southern Cal and Ohio State. We would have been just like the 2004 Auburn team.
In 2005, we lost not only to Florida, but also to Auburn… and then we got our tails handed to us by West Virginia in the Sugar Bowl. And even if we had beaten Florida and Auburn, we most likely once again would have been passed over in favor of a 12-0 USC squad and the 13-0 Vince Young-led Texas team. (And even if we’d been selected for the championship game, I have no reservations in saying that the 2005 team would probably have been smacked by either Texas or SC.
The only team that should have won a national championship, in my book, was the 2007 team. We had the strongest argument of any to be included in the national championship game relative to the other major contenders, but were squeezed out because Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and South Carolina couldn’t make one last-minute field goal between them (to beat Tennessee, which would have sent us to the SEC championship game.).
by vineyarddawg on Sep 25, 2011 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions
and then we got our tails handed to us by West Virginia in the Sugar Bowl
Pat White is still running….
/Shudder
Broadcasting live from a secure location underneath the Hell Gate Bridge
by The Quincy Carter of Accountants on Sep 25, 2011 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions
And Brandon Miller is still in the slot against a spread
/shudder
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Sep 25, 2011 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
2002 was Miami/OSU, not Southern Cal
and it’s not true either. We were ahead of Ohio St in the initial BCS rankings, and only fell behind them because of the Florida loss. We were the one in the AP preseason top 10 that year, not the Buckeyes. And we were ahead of them in both the AP and BCS rankings heading in to that Cocktail Party. If we beat Florida, I’m confident it’s us against Miami in Tempe that year, not Clarett and the Buckeyes.
Now 2005, you have a point. Southern Cal and Texas were 1-2 in the AP and BCS rankings the entire way.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Sep 25, 2011 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
With the B1G contingent at ESPN...
… I’m confident they would have lobbied the Bucks into the #2 spot, just like they lobbied UGA out of the #2 spot in 2007.
But we can agreeably disagree on this issue.
by vineyarddawg on Sep 25, 2011 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
07, we didn't win our conference...
Lobby all they want, they also had ties to SEC money. We were above from the start, if that’s your argument, which works in 05, works in 04, then it works in 02. Ohio St was squeezing out close game after close game, and wasn’t well thought of that year. But it’s speculation anyway, so argue whatever you want. But you’d be wrong, if we beat Florida, we go before Ohio St.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Agreed 100%.
In 2002, we had everything in our grasp and choked against Florida.
I remember points coming off the board when one of our offensive linemen (can’t remember his name… we call him “The Humper”… I think he was even a 1st round draft pick) got a personal foul for dry humping a Florida DL.
Then Billy choked the next kick (happens all the time to kickers when you make them re-kick a FG they made).
It was downhill from there.
We win that game, we are undefeated, we win the MNC.
not to carry on, but to be more cordial in my disagreement
2007, we didn’t win the conference. That’s a trump card. Now, if a 2007 occurs again, and EVERYONE starts losing games, I could see LSU and Bama both making it even though only one can win the conference. But it’d take that game being their only loss and a lot of luck in others dropping games, and only now because of the SEC 5 straight type hype of dominance. In 07, we didn’t have that hype about the level of play in the conference, and we couldn’t get away with sending both teams to the BCS big game (and that’s not saying we could now, because I have a hard time buying the other conferences would allow that). But in 07, you had either us or LSU. LSU was the SEC Champ, and while we might have been the hotter, and arguably better team at the time of the decision, they had that SEC Champ trump card. So we were out.
2002, we were ahead of the Buckeyes from the get go. We were a preseason top 10 team, and they were well below. We had stars, and a signature play from Pollack. They didn’t, and were grinding out 13-10 win after 17-7 win. They didn’t have a signature win, in spite of a couple top 25 wins in conference and I think Michigan was top 15 in that game. But they were ugly, close games. Ohio St in 2002 wasn’t what they became later with Troy Smith, etc. 2002 was the starting point for that, for the Tressell hype, and they needed a little luck for it to be that starting point (our loss to Florida giving them an opening, a bad call on a pass intereference play to give them a win against Miami, among other lucky breaks).
We had our share of top 25 wins all year, Florida, Auburn, UT, etc, and had the benefit of blowing out Tech, followed by a blowout of a top 25 Arkansas in Atlanta that puts our schedule over theirs and would have effectively killed any lobbying by Herbstreit or May. If we beat Florida, there was no reason to drop us below Ohio St. We had similarly tough schedules, if not tougher, and were beating those teams by more impressive margins. We were prettier, and they are a signature of an ugly, grind out wins team. Combine all that with the being higher intitially in the rankings, and we’d have been the choice. We can agree to disagree, cause it’s hard to compete against a subjective “ESPN would have made the case for their baby”, which may well have proven true, when all the objective reasons favor us (not that they always prevail, especially when the four letter gets involved).
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Sep 26, 2011 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well I have a problem with someone saying
they’ll get on the energy bus AFTER the team has made you feel good, when the whole point of an “energy bus” concept (or whatever other self-help/motivational fad book concept we choose) is about building positive energy and a sense of togetherness BEFORE you go into the tough times. Poo-pooing it beforehand, and saying that it’s not going to work, but offering to apologize later on if you’re wrong, is textbook energy vampire. You’d be better off not saying anything, if you aren’t actually trying to sap energy away from the group. But, hey, we’re just the fans, not the actual team, so we can do what we want as far as the energy bus goes.
But much more importantly (the actual football stuff), see next comment.
xon
I don’t need anyone to explain the energy bus concept to me. I was trying to find compromise. My feelings are not even on the table here, I am completely non emotional about the concept that I believe our OC & overall concept of play is holding us back & we will not have rings until we have a paradigm shift.
I read the book, did the book report. Please Don’t put feelings in my heart or words in my mouth.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
by chuckdawg on Sep 25, 2011 12:48 PM EDT via iPhone app up reply actions
I wasn't trying to do that.
You said explicitly that you are off the bus, did you not? And I was completely sincere when I said that, as fans, the whole concept doesn’t really apply to us in any important way, and so we are all free to be on or off the bus as we think best. I don’t mind you not being on the bus.
I should not have lectured you about it, and for that I apologize. But I also don’t think it matters, as I said. So, no big deal either way. (If a player on the team had your attitude, I would be concerned and Richt would be right to get that player on board or send them packing. But we fans can do what we want. The whole energy bus thing is an internal team thing that we like to talk about it because it’s funny, and that’s all.)
This is a highly personal comment:
If a player on the team had your attitude, I would be concerned and Richt would be right to get that player on board or send them packing.
I don’t think you are looking at my entire body of work. And you don’t know me in “real life” you are reading my post game comments and analysis. If I was on the team I would be worried about doing my roll and shutting my mouth, as well as doing what I could to help my teammates. My concern from a leadership standpoint is our coaches are sending mixed signals and creating and environment that is confusing.
I think I am just going to leave it right there. This horse is dead.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
It's an inappropriate attitude for a player to have
but not for a fan to have.
I’m only clarifying my point here because I want it to be clear that I was not intending to make any personal judgment of you.
I meant no offense. I understand why it offended, and i should have been more careful in considering what needed to be said and what didn’t, as well as choosing my words more diplomatically. Please accept my apology.
Some people don't like this expression, however, "It's all good."
/cyber handshake
FWIW I have quit a few optimistic, CMR supporting fanposts.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
this is the fallacy of over-pressing an analogy
I am not saying we are exactly the same now as we were then. I am certainly not saying we are as good now as those teams were. I am simply saying that, if non-pretty wins over inferior opponents are supposed to justify despair going forward, then the fanbase should have been despairing back then, too. That is the only similarity I’m pointing out here, and nothing more.
I do not buy the theory that our “ugly” wins foretell losing in big games. Of course, if the failure to have a perfect season is taken as confirmation of that theory, then it’s almost impossible to disprove that theory (which is a problem with the theory itself, most likely). Yes, we lost some games back in the Greene-Pollack days, but jeez louise, listen to yourself! We were not perfect then. We have never been perfect. We will never be perfect. Stop worrying and learn to love the bomb. :-)
Here’s the “ironic” thing about this, as I see it. You are making a very stat-based argument here. The general view of statisticians is that you can predict winning percentage based on past performance. Score differentials in particular are the best predictor. So, if you tend to outscore your opponents by a lot, that indicates you are a high quality team and you are likely to win a high percentage of your future games. But if you don’t outscore your inferior opponents by as much as you are expected to, then you probably are not as good of a team and are going to over time show that by struggling to win against the better teams you play. This is your very argument, is it not?
I agree, as a stats-sympathetic guy, that we can find cause to be concerned. We can also find some cause to be excited. A lot of cause to be excited, in fact. But I find it odd that you, tankertoad, are putting so much weight into that kind of argument.
Its not an issue of ugly wins foretelling ugly losses in big games.
We already have 2 ugly losses in big games.
So we’ve already seen for a FACT that this team likes to choke in big games.
The fact that we stink it up in ugly wins over crap teams doesn’t really help the belief that we are truly getting over the hump and won’t continue to choke in the big games.
your argument and tankertoad's are not the same
I was responding to tankertoad in particular, who most certainly did argue that he is worried going forward because of how we played yesterday.
But to your argument, what on earth would help us believe that we’re truly getting over the hump and are going to finally close in big games again? We all want that, and I don’t think any of us are going to get it until we actually do it. Arguing beforehand whether it is or isn’t going to happen because we only beat Ole Miss by n points is what I think is misguided.
"But to your argument, what on earth would help us believe that we’re truly getting over the hump and are going to finally close in big games again? "
Winning big games against real opponents. :)
Like, beating Florida. :)
In other words, what I said. :-)
And, until we do that, nitpicking yesterday’s win is really beside the point. 2011 Georgia is not 2010 Georgia. That’s good. Whether we actually beat the good teams again, we just have to wait and see. Using imperfections from yesterday’s game to predict our demise is inaccurate and unhelpful.
I think the problem is not really the ugly wins
but the ugly losses in big games. If we won the SC game, sloppy as it may have been, I don’t think the negativity would be at the level that it is.
To be clear on AM
He missed Figgins from 7 yards in the flat wide open, trying to put “touch” on it. He threw it to the sidelines.
He consistently under threw or didnt lead. One of our rcvrs actually had to stop in his tracks to attempt to catch a deep pass.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Murray looks a lot more comfortable to me
now that he has a take the pressure off weapon in Crowell.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
That was an incorrect call?
It looked like an incredibly lucky, but accurately called, interception to me.
The 984 Has Spoken!
They missed it.
One replay showed it but when they called for the review they focused only on the catch, which the DB did make.
just watched it again several times...
too close to call. I still think it hit the ground when King was reaching for it, but it wasn’t clear, so I give. :)
Looking back, I too will admit that there appeared to be a bounce not reviewed
That said, I think we can both agree they didn’t mess up like the refs in the Toledo/Syracuse game.
The 984 Has Spoken!
yea, that was messed up.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Charles is kind of becomming McMike Jr....
Similar build to Randy McMichael (6’3 or so, 240s), big time threat at TE and surefire NFL tools, makes big plays and amazing catches, but mixes them in with mind numbingly easy drops.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
at least we know
that it looks like the division goes through gainesville. So we got that going for us.
/quickly ducks
by Mark Mandingo on Sep 24, 2011 10:45 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Totally Surprised.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Why "roll the dice" against Ole Miss?
They’re the worst team in the conference. No one’s going to vote us into the top 25 because we converted 4th downs against the Rebels. There was nothing to gain here from a big win, so a big win wasn’t necessary.
While 2-2 is a darned sight better than 0-2, this fact remains a fact: Georgia has not beaten a Division I-A team that finished with a winning record in its last 18 games, and there is little likelihood that either of the last two weekends will change that fact. What Georgia desperately needs is a quality win over a decent opponent.
There is nothing the team or the coaches could have done to alter the circumstances. I don’t see how how a “quality win” over a “lousy team” is qualitatively any different from a “decent win” over a “lousy team.” No one was shocked or awed by our “quality win” over Coastal Carolina, and with the state Ole Miss is in, no one would have been impressed if we’ve hung the same score on the Rebels.
We had comfortable lead heading into the second half, so why risk any of it? We had a lot to lose in this game, and not much to gain. A loss would have sealed our fate in the East and possibly all the coaches jobs, as well, while a four-touchdown blowout would have gotten us nothing. When you’re playing a lousy team, the proverbial win is a proverbial win is a proverbial win.
Leaving insightful football commentary and analysis to other people since 2006.
The things to be gained are intangible.
Confidence. Winning attitude. 60 minutes of hard play and play calling.
Yes, a quality win over a lousy team is different than a decent win over a lousy team. You just said it “quality”. If you cant do it against lousy, then how can you expect to do it against a really good team? Like a golf instructor told me, if you cant do it small, how do you think you can do it big? Coastal Carolina isnt in the equation. There is no risk in better play calling to allow our players to score.
We are teaching and accepting mediocracy (sp). UGA should have won by 30. We do not have a finish the drill mentality, and it’s coming from the coaches. We need to learn to blast the Ole MIsses so we can scrap against the UFs. We dont need to learn to just get by anymore. This team’s mental attitude is not one that is founded on 60 minutes of GO.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
do you not run the risk
of player injuries and honestly give our depth issues, isn’t that a very real concern?
I can bake like a demon.
Podunk, you ask a straight forward and fair question without snark or debate (I think)
Depth is a concern. But they still have to line up and hit. And in the SEC, even in a rout, you have to expect your opponent is going to hit you very hard given the chance. There are no plays off. They are some plays, such as a post pattern, that can get a player hurt. But this is football. I think the chances of someone getting hurt are greater when you let a team linger rather than put them away where you know it, they know it and we know it. All players need to give their all every down. There is simply no one on this team at this time to get by with less. And the coaches should give them the most chances to succeed based on their abilities and adjustments.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
No...
on the injuries idea, taking the foot off the pedal so to speak, actually increases the risk of injury. Playing hard and taking it to your opponent is the way you play. When you take it easy, relax, and stop going hard, the opponent generally doesn’t, and when they come at you going full speed, while you’re at 3/4s speed, you get hurt. So by taking it easy, we put ourselves at greater risk of injury, not less. At least that’s what I’ve always been taught.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
To me the point is that the game was closer than it should have been.
It was still in doubt with ten minutes to go when we should have been able to play the back-ups. We pushed this team all over the field in every respect except one, and while we won this game, we lost another one with the same situation.
Me no likey.
Yeah
I tend to agree. This game felt like a lot of Greene-Pollack era games to me, frankly. We got enough of a lead that with an excellent defense we were not likely to be in any danger of actually losing, and then we simply fiddle-farted through the second half. Could of had some more points than we got, but that happened a lot from 01-04, too.
2004 Arkansas? 2003 Kentucky? 2003 Auburn? Etc. There’s a lot of talk of “ball control” and not putting the D in bad positions, moving the chains if nothing else and not focusing so much on big plays (“first and bombs,” etc.). That latter point I strongly disagree with, as explosiveness is a hugely important correlate to wins in football, but put that aside for now. On the basic “give us Tubberville” nostalgia a lot of people seem to be pedaling lately (unless I am utterly misunderstanding?), today was a gem. No game is perfect and you always have things to improve upon. That’s just how football works.
But “should have won by 40” while only winning by 14-21 is classic BVG/CMR-era Georgia football, folks. We’re so gunshy now (which is understandable) that we just want the team to blow up and play like the Packers would against a high school team, and when that doesn’t happen we are denied our release and so we feel like it was a bad game. But it really wasn’t. It was a good game. Not as great as it could have been, but the vast majority aren’t. That’s football.
And what message is sent to the kids?
This isnt classiv BVG/CMR football because we had a winning attitude then. Everyone had faith in the coaches and in David Green. This team needs to learn to win.
I am at an absolute 180 from you. This wasnt a good game. We never put in the killing blow. We let a horrible, horrible team linger.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
which we did countless times back in the "good ol' days," too
I understand that we won big games back then, and that’s the difference. 100% agreement. There is no substitute for winning. But the issue is that you can’t say we’re in a malaise and diagnose us with a disease that we apparently also had back when we were winning a lot of big games. If “not striking the killer blow” is what keeps us from being a winning team overall, then why did it not hurt us from 2001-5?
Because they had "it" then. And we don't have "it" now.
I am out. I got to go decompress.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Here’s the thing:
Its no big deal to take your foot off the gas against a chump if you know with absolute certainty you can crank it up to max against a “real opponent.”
But we haven’t shown the ability to do that for years, and we haven’t shown the ability to do it CONSISTENTLY since 2004.
I agree
but I don’t even think this is an issue of deliberately taking the foot off the gas. I think that’s probably a coachspeak smokecloud more often than not. It was in 2003 when it happend, and it was today, too. Sometimes you just don’t finish as well as you started on offense, but since you had a lead you were still in good shape. There’s no need to baptize that outcome with a claim that it was intentional after the fact.
The only point I’m making here is that, for whatever reasons, we had things in common today with the “older” way, the very way that so many people think is what we have lost. We had a team that was able to clearly demonstrate its superiority on both sides of the ball, but which played much of the game like it was just running out the clock rather than caring much about the details. A lot of games looked that way in 01-04. And there was much rejoicing. Nowadays it happens and we all complain and say we wanted the mythical “45 point win, like we would have done when BVG was here.”
What was that stat from Richt’s first 7 or 8 years?
Something like 41-0 record if our offense scored at least 19 points.
I remember a few years ago when we had our first blemish on that record, it was a very sad day.
I would suggest that perhaps "taking the foot off the gas"...
…might mean something different to Bobo and Richt than it does to us. To us, it means “intentionally being conservative because we have a comfortable lead” or something like that. To them it might just be an expression to describe a lack of offensive execution after the fact.
by dawgfan will on Sep 25, 2011 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Coach Bobo point blank said they got more conservative. It had nothing to do with execution.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
You know the entire game thread
I was basically trying to talk you back on the bus TT. But after reading that this was actually strategy by Bobo, I have to say … you were right. All game long you were right. What in the hell kind of strategy is this! Un – freaking – believable! I have to say that the fact that these words came out of his mouth seriously takes the wind out of my sails in a huge way.
I want so badly to support these guys but as you said, if you are coaching in this way how can you expect your players to go 100% all 4 quarters? Does CTG take the gas off? I swear I wish CTG would straight up bitch slap CMB behind the woodshed! Whatever we do… and I am not a big “fire that guy” either… but we have got to get that “take the foot off the gas” out of our program. Ask any winning program in the country if they employ the “take the foot off the gas” mentality as a key component to their winning. I doubt you will here them admit it if ever they do but believe me they don’t. Like Kyle said, they may run the ball and kill clock but they will run these plays with the true intention of killing the clock, not downs and/or possession.
This discourages me in a huge way!
"Uvarum, Uvarum Fit, Uvarum.... double Fit..."
- Augustus "Gus" McCrae
by Munson's_Marbles on Sep 25, 2011 5:25 AM EDT up reply actions
I never got off the bus, I am just want the energy vampire that is our OC off it.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
If this had been BVG/CMR football, we would have had a couple more sacks, and half their offense would have been limping around in their pee soaked pants by the end of the game.
That, I agree with.
We’re not exactly there yet. I’m just pointing out the pattern we showed on the field today, just s the pessimists are also doing. I’m showing it cuts both ways.
Our D has not reattained BVG status yet. No way. Didn’t mean to say it had. But today was a single game in which we were so clearly equipped to allow Ole Miss nothing through any conventional offensive avenue, that it was a comparable experience.
Don’t get me wrong. IMHO, this season shows massive defensive progress.
The problem is, its still fragile.
In 2003 at Tenn, we had a lead but Tenn was about to punch it in to make it close. When Sean Jones scooped up the fumble for a 92 yard TD that didn’t shock me. It was awesome, but not surprising.
Those defenses made stuff happen. They always came up with big plays.
I don’t have that feeling about this D yet, and I don’t think they have it about themselves yet.
The last thing they need is our offense stupidly taking their foot off the gas and giving the other team more chances to get back in the game and bust our defense’s confidence.
Again, I agree, and very well said
It is never to our advantage for the O to fail to execute. I’d always prefer us to push the pedal to the metal. It would have been even better in 2004 if we had done that, too. Those D’s that made things happen still would have benefited from the even better situations they could have been in on certain occasions if not for the O sputtering (and of course, the O sputtering on occasion is just part of life, too)
Compared to last year’s Colorado game, though, winning like this is always better. (controversial for me to say, I know: I really provoke the crazy lol)
I’m not saying a sputtering O that doesn’t step on their throat is ideal. I’m saying it’s a heck of a lot closer to making us a great team now that we have a decent D again. With an awesome D (if they can prove to be that at some point), then we already have the ingredients, right now (including coaching, folks), to produce wins at 01-05 levels. A ferocious D and a high-potential but often-sputtering O was the essence of those great teams. So if we have a high-potential but often-sputtering O now, we’re half way there! :-)
The last thing they need is our offense stupidly taking their foot off the gas and giving the other team more chances to get back in the game and bust our defense’s confidence
Thats what I have been trying to say, maybe poorly. Our O should not be in the business of “depending on” our D. Coach Bobo point blank said they did this. I dont want one side of the ball ever to depend on the other side. I want the offense to score TDs, and the Defense to get 3 and Outs, to the max extent possible. The idea that Bobo is thinking “Our D is solid, I should lay off” is insane if we arent up by at least 3 scores in the 3rd. A pick six and a drive and boom, Ole Miss is back in the game. We are playing with fire.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Bobo is good at only two things:
1) Coaching QBs
2) Impregnating his wife.
He should stick to those things, and let someone else be OC.
He shouldnt be able to do #2.
/one bobo is enough
We need a proven offensive mind, that isnt quite ready to be a HC at an FBS school.
Try to avoid making personal attacks, Muckbeast.
We understand that you don’t like Mike Bobo, but there is no reason to make it as personal as you are doing.
by vineyarddawg on Sep 25, 2011 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm genuinely puzzled, though
I understand that we can have a meta-argument about the best coaching philosophy regarding “protecting” a lead. Sure. But in this area it seems to me that Richt is and has always been, in the mold of Fulmer, Tubberville, etc. When up by more than one score in the second half (especially 4th quarter), he believes in drastically increasing the frequency of running plays and trying to shorten the game big time in order to reduce the opponent’s chance of coming back (they will have less chances to do so with the shorter game, and we also reduce our chance of a turnover since we aren’t passing as much).
I think of myself as a mixture between “old school” and “newer school” when it comes to football strategy. I don’t long for the days of Dooley, because I don’t think that is as effective now as it was then. I think certain things have changed about the game (It also goes in cycles, though, so maybe in twenty years three yards and a cloud of dust will be the best strategy again, I don’t know). At the same time, I don’t just chase after the latest offensive fad to come along, either. But the game is more pass-happy now than it used to be. That is objectively, undeniably the case. I don’t mean just that teams do pass more; I mean that it is the optimal strategy to pass more. It is right and proper coaching to pass more than the average team used to pass (I’m assuming a pro-style system here, of course).
My point: I have never been one of the people saying that we just need a “ball control” offense and a strong defense, the end. I think a more explosive offense is a necessity in this day and age, though of course on those defense is always a must and it bails you out on those days when your awesome O just isn’t clicking. But a lot of people around here do advocate the “ball control and lean on the D” philosophy. But now yesterday that’s what we did, and the same people are peeved that we did it.
There is still no agreement about what our problem actually is. What, in basic terms, kind of offense are we supposed to be running? What sort of strategy are we supposed to employ in various situations? I guess if folks would lay that out before the game, and then show objectively how we failed to do it after the game was over, I would be less frustrated with this conversation. What I see happening now is a lot of selective memory and confirmation bias (which afflicts everyone, myself included). We just get frustrated in-game, and start blaming everything in accordance with our pre-chosen theory.
If shortening the game is the goal,
the going for it on fourth and short rather than attempting a field goal would be the best decision.
I'm not defending that decision either way
but, since you bring it up, It would depend on what you think the odds are in that particular case. If you are shortening the game with a lead, then every extra point shortens it further (it gives the opponent more ground to cover in the “shorter” game that remains). So, 3 points are really valuable because any point is valuable. Going for it on a conventional play will end, worst case, in your opponent having the ball on the next play with your lead unchanged. That’s the same worst case result of attempting the FG. But the benefit of making it on the FG is to actually increase your lead, which is a very good result.
So, it would all depend on the odds of the kick vs. making the 1st down conventionally, etc.
No one has stated/asked this...what the heck is up with special teams?
Crappy coverage and BW suffering from “Mark Wohlers” disease. ST was supposed to be THE strength of this team.
Success is never final. --Winston Churchill
The coverage is horrible, just insanely horrible. Absolutely horrendous punt coverage. And fakes eat us alive.
BW – who knows. When kickers start missing its all about finding the trigger to get them on again.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Want Warren Belin back.
Dude was GOOD.
Rbubp has gone into caveman mode the rest of the night. want wins. want big wins. And gator blood. want that too.
It;s a simple game…you throw the ball. you catch the ball. you hit the ball…or something like that. Cavemen play it, cavemen want bloody big wins. Urrrrgh.
by rbubp on Sep 24, 2011 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Crappy coverage from Bolton Wanderers?
What does the poor defensive skill of a mid-level English soccer team have to do with any of this?
by vineyarddawg on Sep 25, 2011 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions
It took me a few to figure out what the heck you were talking about! ;)
Success is never final. --Winston Churchill
Sorry...
… when I see two-letter abbreviations, I automatically revert to my soccer mind, since I’m not used to seeing players referred to that way, but am accustomed to seeing soccer clubs referenced thusly. BW is Bolton Wanderers, MU is Manchester United, CFC is Chelsea, EFC is Everton, AV Aston Villa, and so on…
by vineyarddawg on Sep 25, 2011 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I wish I had paid more attention to soccer when I was stationed in the UK.
I’d probably be a better fan than I am now…which is to say, I don’t follow it at all.
Success is never final. --Winston Churchill
I have mixed feelings
Defense played well, but this is honestly one of the worst SEC offenses I have ever seen. You don’t think Malzahn or Paul Johnson won’t throw a few wrinkles at us? As far as the offense, it really did look like they stopped caring. This is something I’ve noticed from the team from the past couple years: they never seem to finish. That’s how 2009 Kentucky and 2010 Colorado happened: they get a comfortable lead, forget there’s still 30 minutes left, and then promptly quit trying to score more points. It’s kind of like the Braves “We got the lead, why really try to hit?” strategy. I want to see Georgia jump out to a lead on a quality opponent and then really put it away. Put your foot on the gas and don’t take it off until the end of the 4th. That, to me, is what differentiates a good team from a great team, and we don’t seem to be able to do that right now. Overrall good, but we still have a long way to go.
by elfcrash on Sep 24, 2011 11:45 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I feel like I'm taking cray pills
Maybe I’m just a girl that doesn’t know anything about football but I didn’t see Mike Bobo change the game plan in the second half. I saw him feeding isaiah crowell the ball just like we had been and him not gaining many yards because ole miss’ defense made adjustments. sooo that’s not okay? ole miss was a team that was beyond desperate for a win to save their coach. I was personally never once concerned about them coming back. our defense played very well. we dominated in every category. if our place kicker hadn’t had a bad night it would have been ugly. and guess what. we won the game. gee louise. can we not just celebrate a win???
Celebrate all you want...
but we’re tired of seeing the same mistakes. Ole Miss is a bad usually only reserved for the likes of Vanderbilt. They are Duke-level bad. The defense looks better. But Ole MIss’s offense is atrocious, so it’s hard to know if that’s real progress.
We’d have been irritated if we beat the Chanitcleers 27-14 last week, yes? This Ole Miss team is maybe two TDs better than the Chanticleers, IMO.
Your not "just a girl"
You are valuable member of the dawgsports community that provides valuable insight.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
This.
The constant negativity is driving me crazy. Whatever Georgia is or isn’t going to do this season, hanging 45 on a terrible Ole Miss team wouldn’t have any effect at all. As it is, they dominated the game and won comfortably enough that I never felt like the game was in doubt. And it still has little bearing on the rest of the season. Every game left but Florida seems winnable, and Georgia has done enough in the last three games to give me some hope that South Carolina was the nadir of the season. Until they lose a game to the likes of Mississippi State or Tennessee I’m holding onto that hope.
by Biggus Rickus on Sep 25, 2011 7:50 AM EDT up reply actions
This
I’ve honestly just stopped coming around here during the game threads (same as the Braves SB Nation site, Talking Chop) bc of this negativity. It’s no fun as a fan to sit through a 3 hour game with the entire conversation revolving around how much we suck or complaining about every little nit.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
by AuditDawg on Sep 25, 2011 2:04 PM EDT via iPhone app up reply actions
I understand where you're coming from
And it gets that way sometimes. And while there are some who just come on to bitch and moan (So and so sucks, FIRE EVERYBODY!, etc), there’s also a good amount of “we should have done this, and here’s why”. The former is frustrating and I just ignore it. The latter I welcome.
Sacrificing goats, chugging Maker's Mark, and walking underneath The Arch.
Uh...
You’re not alone.
I disagree with many of the above regarding this game. I saw a team that, but for a trick play and a punt return, shutout the opposition. On the road. In the SEC. Against a team that was desperate for a win.
I saw an offense, that despite “letting off the gas” should’ve scored 36 points, if not for three missed FGs. Had the final score been 36-0 or even 36-7. The feelings would be much different, or maybe not, for win or lose, we’re still Dawg fans. I’m much more impressed with this W than the L against South Carolina, which some are indicating was a better played game…that we lost…which we should have won. Color me unimpressed by losses, even “close” ones handed to the opponent.
This game was the first game I’ve seen this season that didn’t remind me of last year’s squad, a team that rolled over against inferior opponents when the going got tough (see: Colorado last year) or made bone-headed mistakes that killed us (see: Colorado, Miss. State, South Carolina (both years), Florida, etc.). This game, finally, we won…and by two TDs.
Kyle includes Miss. State and Vandy as teams better than Ole Miss. That’s fair, but by how much are these teams better? Vandy lost by 18 to South Carolina and Miss. State won by 6 in OT against Louisiana Tech. Sorry if I’m not too frightened of those squads.
The fact is, we did what we needed to do against an SEC team on the road. LSU only won by 13 over Miss. State on the road. and many view them as best team in the country…yes, that same Miss. State who barely beat an inferior breed of Bulldogs last night.
My only concerns after watching this game involve the special teams. They are giving up too many big plays, and Walsh has been terrible this season. Other than that, I saw a team dominate in the running game and destroy the opposing offense, which, despite being bad, is something UGA hasn’t done in the recent past.
Last season, Alabama beat Ole Miss 23-10, Auburn won 51-31, LSU won 43-36 and Miss. State won 31-23. This Ole Miss team has kept games close against many solid opponents. Why should I be upset they did the same to us? Is the 2011 version much worse than the 2010 version? Or is our team better than 2010 Alabama, Auburn, LSU and Miss. State? Ha.
"Don't go ninja'n nobody that don't need ninja'n!" ~ Kung Fu Hillbilly.
by Jman781 on Sep 25, 2011 8:11 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is actually in reply to Jman781 and Biggus Rickus
I’m certainly not trying to pile on the negativity or to instigate anything, but I think that there have been some truly legitimate concerns brought up in this thread.
As Jman says, our team “should’ve scored 36 points if not for 3 missed FGs.” Jman looks at that from a glass-half-full perspective, but it’s that exact same stat this is feeding the glass-half-empty crowd. On the positive side: yes we managed to move the ball and get some decent drives going. On the negative side: several of those drives stalled, and when we had an opportunity to put more points on the board, we failed.
If you don’t think that those kinds of missed opportunities could come back to bite us in the butt, then you and I must respectfully disagree. All we have to do is look back to the opening quarter of the SC game a couple of weeks ago. UGA’s first 3 drives resulted in 3 FG attempts, only 2 of which were made. If UGA had executed better, we could have had SC in a (at best) 21-0 hole, or (at worst) a 9-0 deficit.
Seeing those same kinds of missed opportunities (or even more) in game 4 as we did in game 2 doesn’t instill as much confidence in the fanbase as a 2 TD win otherwise would.
by MDDawg on Sep 25, 2011 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Of course it could lead to a loss down the road.
However, until those games are actually played I see no reason to wallow in every mistake they make week to week. If people don’t take some hope from the fact that Georgia has played mostly excellent defense the last three games and shown the ability to move the football well, that’s their business. However, it sucks the joy out of being a fan, and it makes these comment threads tedious reads.
by Biggus Rickus on Sep 25, 2011 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
There will never, ever, ever
be a season where we do not have some games where a few drives look good but stall out, where we miss a few field goals. In 2003, Billy Bennett missed 3 FGs at LSU, and we lost. In 2011, Walsh missed 3 FGs at Ole Miss…and we won by 14 anyway. Because we’re way way better than Ole Miss. It is the law of averages, if nothing else, that some drives will stall and some FGs will be missed and some passes will be poorly thrown and some plays will not be executed well. It’s also the law of averages that the opponent is going to “rise above” on a few plays, is going to execute perfectly even though that play had been stuffed every other time they’d tried it up to that point, etc. Sometimes, all these things cluster abnormally into a single game, and it is closer than it ought to be. But, what happened to last year’s team when games were closer than they were supposed to be? We lost. Every. Time.
This year, when we fiddle fart around with a bad team, we still beat them like they are a bad team. It is still really obvious to everyone watching the game that we are better. Again, it is (in this one limited way) similar to the 01-05 teams. It is not a cause for despair that you win even when you don’t execute perfectly. It is a cause for optimism, assuming that the execution can be corrected.
If you’re so convinced that our coaches cannot correct execution and we have no hope, then fine. Nobody can argue against that honest pessimism (though reasonable can disagree with it, as I do).
There is no “karma” rule here. In-game, yes, if you let an inferior team hang around it could come back to bite you. But going forward, what yesterday showed is that we’re much better than Ole Miss, and nothing more. And that’s all it showed. It didn’t show that we will, or won’t, go on to win our games against teams better than Ole Miss. Against those opponents, whether we win or not will depend on a lot of different things. We know at this point that a. we are capable of executing at a high level, and b. our “baseline” level of play is much better than that of the lesser teams on our schedule. Should we be doing cartwheels? No way. But should we have a bit of confidence going forward? I think so.
Hope this is a fair analysis . . .
My narrative: We needed a win over an SEC team. We got one. Everything is just peachy.
Tankertoad’s narrative: We needed to throttle a bad team to prove we can hang with a good team. We didn’t. Everything is terrible.
I think we both saw what we wanted to see.
Leaving insightful football commentary and analysis to other people since 2006.
I want to see improvement.
BSU to SC was big improvement, yes. Yet, I have not seen improvement since South Carolina. This was NOT improvement since then.
I disagree, rbubp.
We have seen improvement in virtually every area from game to game with the sole exception of special teams. (Which is a huge exception… but still.)
Our defense has continued to get better, and our running offense has definitely been getting better. Place kicking has virtually collapsed, and punt coverage has been pretty poor, as well.
There are areas that need to be worked on. It’s not like there has been no improvement, though.
by vineyarddawg on Sep 25, 2011 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions
We need to throttle a bad team because we SHOULD throttle a bad team. Period.
It’s not a problem for the SEC teams that have won SECs and NCs this past decade. Watch, just watch what Alabama, Arkansas and LSU do to Ole Miss. When Bama gets done with Ole MIss there likely wont be anything left for LSU.
And that is what it takes to go to Atlanta to face these teams and win.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
With all due respect, tankertoad...
… in 2005, we beat an abysmal Mississippi State team 23-10 on the road (and we were ranked #6 at the time). In 2002, we beat an abysmal Ole Miss team 31-17 in Athens (and we were ranked #8 at the time), and it was near the end of the season, when one would think a championship team should have their crap together by then.
We dominated on the stat sheet, but just didn’t close on scoring the points we needed to. Ole Miss was the kind of team to have those problems against. Hopefully we’ll correct that issue in future games, but we still beat them down old-school style. Fourth-quarter-punt-return-that-was-called-back aside, they weren’t really in the game at all after the first half.
by vineyarddawg on Sep 25, 2011 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Noted. 3 points in the second half is unacceptable.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
All very well said Kyle....
My overall reaction to the game was positive, although I certainly see Tankertoad’s point of view.
I think when we played Boise State we are all pretty clear that it was worse than a two touchdown loss. To me the play on the field today was better than a two touchdown win. It seems to me that if I’m going to recognize and bemoan the excess of bad play over that which is reflected on the score board in a loss, perhaps it’s ok to do the opposite in a win.
Broadcasting live from a secure location underneath the Hell Gate Bridge
by The Quincy Carter of Accountants on Sep 25, 2011 12:20 AM EDT reply actions
Thanks - sincerely. I know I got a big negatron voice going.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
I'm still so mad about this game that I don't want to talk about it...
And no, I’m not kidding. I really do feel like I’m overreacting, but Bobo frustrated me so badly with some of his play calls, that I’m taking a UGA break at least until tomorrow afternoon.
Why tomorrow afternoon? Because I’m going to go to church, eat a good lunch, and then dissect every third down call I can find and see what the trend is. I swear, I’m seeing Bobo run on 3rd & 6 or longer, and pass on 3rd & 5 or shorter.
How predictable is he? MY FIANCÉ CALLED TWO BOBO PLAYS ON THIRD DOWN TODAY. AND SHE’S AN ALABAMA FAN.
I feel an “explicit” rating on the podcast coming.
"60% of the time, it works every time."
by Ludakit on Sep 25, 2011 12:47 AM EDT via iPhone app reply actions
Well, to be fair, if she's a Bama fan
then she probably took a course in football strategy in Middle School, didn’t she?
Thought this sounded crazy....
I swear, I’m seeing Bobo run on 3rd & 6 or longer, and pass on 3rd & 5 or shorter.
But I glanced through the ESPN game log and yeah, it definitely happened a lot.
Although in fairness whatever he did it converted on 50ish% of third downs.
/understand it’s a problem, not defending Bobo
Broadcasting live from a secure location underneath the Hell Gate Bridge
by The Quincy Carter of Accountants on Sep 25, 2011 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Bobo already told us why last week -
he is tricking them! They expect a pass on long, and a run on short, so he does the opposite, he said so.
Give me my meds already.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
I almost wrote all yall to get a phone number to call somebody.
So, yea Ludakit, I get it, I really do.
I went out, shot pool, socialized, came home and I am still fuming mad. Coach Bobo’s quotes are rattling around my head “zone spread, blah blah”
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Congratulations coach Mark Richt!!!
(too much media/not enough news).
Winning, evidently, just isn’t enough.
GO DAWGS SIC EM!!! WOOF! WOOF! WOOF! WOOF! WOOF! WOOF!
Cheer Up
I’m about as likely to get down on the Dawgs as most folk here, but I really don’t get the angst over this game.
Has anyone mentioned we beat the spread? How disappointing can an SEC road win be when you beat the spread? Ole Miss didn’t suck any more during or after the game than they did going in.
Yes, we should have scored more points. Had Walsh hit the FGs—and he has rarely missed any from these distances prior to this year—it would have been 36-13. Would that have been horribly depressing? Yes, I would have gone for it on at least one, maybe two of those occasions (I rarely favor FG tries on short yardage situations unless hitting one will win the game). But hardly any other HC would have in that situation, particularly the way our D was playing.
I thought Murray was much more himself in this game than any previous this year. Good things happened on D. Crowell showed toughness. The play-calling was better than usual (it’s never ideal). A banged-up O-line did well against what was supposed to be the strength of the opposition.
Let me put it this way: given all the talk about what this game didn’t provide our players in terms of motivation in the near future, do you really think the Dawgs are in poorer shape psychologically than their next opponent, which after being nationally ranked has already lost two conference games (one of which they should have won) and just got taken to overtime by LaTech at home?
And let me put it another way: those blowout wins last year over Tennessee and Vandy didn’t really mean a thing by the end of the year, did they?
I’ll happily take today’s win. Perhaps we’ll have reason to look back on it as a sign of how little we can do against a bad opponent, but let’s wait and see.
Hell, if nothing else, either our FG kicker has gotten it out of his system, or the coaches will stop turning to him when they could go for 6.
" Ole Miss didn’t suck any more during or after the game than they did going in."
On the contrary, I think Ole Miss sucked a lot LESS during this game than they did going in, and it won’t surprise me at all if this game proves to have been their best performance all year. Granted, such a proof will be difficult to discern, but there were a lot of factors at play for them — factors that ought to have been in play for us against USC but to which we did not respond enough.
I think the final score was no fluke. Ole Miss scored points the only way they could and only to the extent they could. Congrats to them for maximizing their efficiency. That the point totals were as close as they were on the scoreboard is due both to Georgia offensive conservatism and Ole Miss’s stellar play (given what they have as a baseline).
I want to sincerely thank all the dawgsports readers and contributors.
I want to thank Xon for pressing my debates.
I am thankful that Muckbeast is back and stating a differing opinion.
I am thankful to the folks that read and put up with my three year running perception of negativity. (which it isnt, I swear, I am just stating what I see, if you follow the live threads closely, you will see many times I say “good play” when I see one)
I am thankful to Kyle and MaconDawg for putting me on this team.
This blog is about to set some site records, I am grateful to all the regulars, the newly found posters, and even the lurkers out there. Gamedays are always going to be more impassioned, when or lose.
I don’t mind different opinions or even negative ones. But for the love of all things Georgia, please never, ever do what MSU did today and boo our team in a hard fought game and then turn around and cheer and dance to zombie nation like they actually did something. Cheering is ok. Booing is not.
Go Dawgs!
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
by chuckdawg on Sep 25, 2011 3:48 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
they were saying Boourns! Boourns!
by Mark Mandingo on Sep 25, 2011 9:04 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions 2 recs
nice
Broadcasting live from a secure location underneath the Hell Gate Bridge
by The Quincy Carter of Accountants on Sep 25, 2011 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm making way through what I missed in the middle of the night
and now you’re being all conciliatory and diplomatic down here, and I’m worried I should have read everything before responding to a few things up above.
If I come across as overly contentious, please forgive. I always enjoy the discussions, except when I don’t. :-) (And then I step away, so if I’m participating, I’m enjoying.)
Thanks, tankertoad. I really appreciate that, and I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly.
I’m always baffled by comment threads, particularly when I’m only seeing them after the fact. I was astonished that so many people felt bad about the South Carolina game, and I’m very nearly as astonished that so many people feel good about the Ole Miss game. Granted, winning is always better than losing, but how you do what you do matters greatly going forward.
I appreciate the impassioned discourse, and the civility which which 90+ per cent of it is conducted. These are trying times, though, so it is to be expected that our exchanges would contain a few more expressions of stress than they did when times were good. Hang in there, people; it’ll get better.
Go 'Dawgs!
I don't know that I feel "good" about the Ole Miss game...
… in fact, I’m sure that I don’t feel good about it. But I don’t feel bad about it, either.
To be honest, I saw the team I expected to see, plus a few bonehead mistakes that didn’t cost us the game. It didn’t really affect my perception of this team one way or the other, to tell the truth. We won, which is always good, but we didn’t look good doing it, which is always bad against a poor team.
by vineyarddawg on Sep 25, 2011 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Holy Shit!
I was screaming at my computer screen on those 4th and shorts in Ole Miss Territory! I, now, know that either Coach Bozo has to go or CMR needs to grow a fricking pair! I understand playing smart, but HEY ZUES there was no bad side other than giving them the ball back, so they could punt it back to us three plays later! We DOMINATED that game, but the score is like Meh.
Look, MSU is next week and I am going to tell you right now…if they come into our house and win after that super duper performance against LaTech…I will turn my weapon on the two MSU fans that work with me (COMPLETELY KIDDING, of course). I will go postal!
Ole Miss had nothing to lose, they went for some creative plays and they worked, twice. I am thinking that MSU will have the same damn mentality and will try some crap, and it will work, because it just seems to be our luck that we get caught on almost all the trick (fricking) play pulled on us this year….hell, even in recent years.
Vent over
As far as the 4th and short situations
I think Richt may be trying to challenge his players to execute better.
From Seth Emerson’s blog:
Richt said players were pleading with him to go for it on several fourth downs.
"What I told them was if you wanna get a first down, do it in the first three downs," Richt said.
I think they also wanted to give Walsh a shot at redemption on at least one of those.
Or at least not give him the impression they’d lost faith in him.
by Biggus Rickus on Sep 25, 2011 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions
I definitely think that was the case on the last field goal, with which I did not disagree, . . .
. . . given Walsh’s psychology and where we were in the game. It’s the ones before it that I question.
We’ve heard Mark Richt use the “get the first down on third down” bit before, since at least the 2005 game at Mississippi State. While I agree with the sentiment, the psychology isn’t working, and hasn’t for a long time. This was Liberty Bowl decisionmaking, and we shouldn’t ignore that merely because we didn’t get a Liberty Bowl result this time. If that decisionmaking continues, it will cost us a game later this season.
Go 'Dawgs!
Richt said something similiar on 4th and goal from the 1 foot line against CSU last year.
Worst case then, we dont get it and have hugely flipped the field. The problem is our obvious short yardage play calling. We never once try and get to the corner on a stacked box when “going for it”.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Did you see LSU last night?
When they hard-sold a run up the middle at the goal line only to roll out and chuck the ball into the end zone? I need to watch that again to see where the receiver came from, because it looked like they had 15 players piled up around the center before the ball was snapped.
I watched a lot of that game, but missed that one.
Whenever I watch LSU I just shiver.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
By the way ...
I watched the first half of UF-Kentucky and most of LSU-WFVU. I was not impressed with the Gators, but I was very, very impressed with Rainey and Demps. And, as expected, LSU looked really good.
What both teams had in common was the ability to pull points out of their asses. The Florida-Kentucky score looked a lot more dominant at the half than their on-field play did due to Kentucky mistakes and a minimal few big plays from Rainey. I’m willing to give some credit to the Gators’ D for facilitating some of the Wildcats’ mistakes, but Kentucky also had a lot of dropped passes. Th announcers kept going on and on about how great Florida was playing, but I just didn’t see it — at least, not in any traditional, play-execution-hitting-on-all-cylinders way (on either side of the ball). They relied on two freaks of nature and capitalized on occasional opportunities.
I guess my bottom-line point is that the Dawgs need more ass points.
LMAO!!! You never cease to amaze and lighten my mood.
Trying to catch up and read through this thread has been nothing short of depressing/frustrating. Then I get to this. Thanks Vineyarddawg!
Success is never final. --Winston Churchill
So long story short...
we played an inferior opponent, on a day when we were less than our best, and grinded out an ugly win with dominating #s aside from the score.
It’s a win, and we move on. Next week against Miss St should be another battle, although they look weaker than they did a few weeks ago, and hopefully we get a little healthier. And if we win that, it’s UT away from a potentially get us back in the SEC East race at the Cocktail Party. I’m still without faith, but the hope is getting (albeit minimal) support again.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
I listened to the entire game
on XM radio. The Ole Miss announcers were broadcasting. My knee-jerk impressions are as follows:
1. We need to assume that every kickoff and/or punt is going to involve some trickeration. For the rest of the season. The Ole Miss announcers said that on the long TD return, Georgia ran down the field with their heads down and were actually in a position to make a quick tackle. No situational awareness? You can’t tackle what you don’t see.
2. Our defense is getting better in a hurry. Imagine how great they will/could be if everyone was healthy? Welcome back, Mr. Rambo. You lead the SEC in interceptions. The defense only gave up 7 points. And their lone TD was classic Houston Nutt craziness. Yeah, I know Ole Miss is a poor offensive team…but virtually shutting out anyone in this conference on the road is positive.
3. From my point of view on the road, we called about as vanilla a game plan as we possibly could. And now CMB is admitting as much. I just don’t understand it, but I guess we’re saving ourselves for the bright lights and big stage of…wait for it….Mississippi State. Geez.
4. A win is a win. Is a win. I’m happy about it. That is all.
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
Dave -
I completely agree with #1 – there is no doubt we will see rugby punts. No one has mentioned it, but Smith did everything in his power to Muff a punt, somehow we got lucky and it went through his legs.
Yes.
Yes.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Forgot about that play with Smith....
yikes.
Broadcasting live from a secure location underneath the Hell Gate Bridge
by The Quincy Carter of Accountants on Sep 25, 2011 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Also forgotten is the fact we went spread on the 4 yard line
and a PI gave us 1st and goal from the 1 foot line. We also kept one drive alive and got a FG attempt because of a late hit on Murray.
I cant gameplan based on the other guy screwing up.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
If they don't interfere it's an easy completion to Crowell for the TD.
by Biggus Rickus on Sep 25, 2011 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
We didnt even try that. So, don't tell me it's easy when we never tried it, and never had another red zone position.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Huh? The pass was to Crowell on a shallow cross.
If they don’t interfere it’s a simple pitch and catch for the TD. What didn’t they try?
by Biggus Rickus on Sep 25, 2011 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions
No it wasnt, it was to Charles. Crowell didnt score a TD.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
I was referencing the pass interference penalty, not the TD to Charles.
The point is that your complaint about the spread from the 4 is misguided as the play worked, not because Ole Miss made a mistake but because they were forced into the penalty or would have given up the TD.
by Biggus Rickus on Sep 25, 2011 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions
That's what I saw.
The ball was on target at the goal line, but the Ole Miss defender had Crowell’s arm (left, if I’m remembering correctly) pinned down to his body. Easy TD unless Crowell drops it.
Good points Dave
Our defense is getting better in a hurry. Imagine how great they will/could be if everyone was healthy?
I think it’s especially good to see good defensive execution, not a lot of blown assignments, given that it is the middle linebacker position that has the injuries. That could cause total chaos. Nice job by the youngsters handling that.
I think Kwame and BBJ had a pretty nice game as well. Ole Miss struggled with them which is good to see.
Broadcasting live from a secure location underneath the Hell Gate Bridge
by The Quincy Carter of Accountants on Sep 25, 2011 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
To listen to the game
from another perspective (Ole Miss crew) was refreshing. I’m almost glad I didn’t watch it live. They were very complimentary of our overall play and were very impressed with the size and physicality of our defensive backs. These guys seemed to be under no illusions of winning and that the only way Mississippi was going to have a chance was through trick stuff, special teams and Georgia mistakes. They were as baffled as we are all on Walsh’s inability to knock ’em through.
The defense at this point in the season is ahead of the offense. But the offense is close. We’re just not executing. If you would’ve told me before the game that we would throw a pick, drop 5 passes, give up an on-sides kick, and long punt return TD and miss 3 field goals, I would’ve told you we were looking for a new coach on Sunday.
My biggest concern is special teams. Boise had a long return. South Carolina should’ve never gotten the score they did. Ole Miss scored on a punt and got another onsides kick (I absolutely knew this was coming and I bet you did, too.) Better get this shit figured out because it’s already (arguably) cost us one game this year.
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
by DavetheDawg on Sep 25, 2011 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I think that's pretty fair....
he only way Mississippi was going to have a chance was through trick stuff, special teams and Georgia mistakes.
This made me think….
On the Georgia mistakes from prior games and their influence on scheming for Ole Miss; might be a reasonable position for the coaches to have said, you know what, we played better than south Carolina but we lost because we made a lot of mistakes. This week let’s just make sure we don’t beat ourselves. Now I’m not sure that addresses some other concerns about play calling (which are perfectly reasonable), and you could argue that it’s a bad decision anyway, but I could see someone going through that thought process.
Broadcasting live from a secure location underneath the Hell Gate Bridge
by The Quincy Carter of Accountants on Sep 25, 2011 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
The view from the bus:
There are three very legitimate criticisms of the win: (1) Our special teams had a bad day. If we don’t give up the punt return for a TD and Blair Walsh hits those three FGs, we win 36-7. (2) Our receivers had the dropsies, one of which lead to Murray’s sole INT (which, as has been pointed out, still shouldn’t have been an INT). (3) We intentionally went conservative and took our foot off the gas after the first half, which does not ingrain the “play hard for 60 minutes” mindset that great football teams have.
On the other hand, our offense moved the ball at will for a half, which is more than we can say about the BSU game; the bowl game against USF; last year’s SC and Miss State games; LSU, UT, and UF in 2009… Our defense gave up only 7 points and completely shut down Ole Miss in the second half. Isaiah Crowell averaged 4.9 yards per carry on 30 touches. Oh, and we WON, which if I’m remembering correctly is the whole point of this game.
After the last three years, I will take a win any way that we can get one, and I’m going to be happy about it.
feet on their dadgum neck
Would have loved to see us keep our feet on their necks and ratchet up a solid 40 or so points. If nothing else, we need the confidence. Heck, put it Huston Mason and all freshman WRs. FWW, it was at least good to see Richard S 4 get some good carries after IC mopped up and the defense is looking better and better each game…
by livefromfayettevegas on Sep 25, 2011 10:44 AM EDT reply actions
That's my ultimate problem.
If we aren’t going to call plays and position players to allow our starters to maximize performance, we are sending a bad message, and are learning bad habits.
If the starters are in, we should be set to “go”. The piece missing in this “negativity” talk is that both our play calling, along with the players on the field, was completely erratic if we are “being conservative”. We still threw a few bombs, we had our best weapon and the guy carrying our team on the field (Crowell) at the end of the game (already winded and winged), we still threw on short downs, ran on long downs and the pieces do not fit together.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Starters or backups imo
Mason and Troupe and Dantzler and the other kids who empty the bench, they practice hard too, and deserve to run the plays same as everyone else. Let those kids play, and if you can’t stop our deep reserves, that’s on you.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Sep 25, 2011 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
To be more positive, a very good stat:
Although we had the dropsies, and although AM is a touch off leading receivers,
He completed passes to 7 different guys. Charles and White both had catches.
Our offense may have been quite different without stone hands and over-thinking a pass. I think these guys just need to go out alone, maybe even in Sanford Stadium, and play pitch and catch together, get the “fun” back. They are trying to hard to make something happen and get ahead of themselves with fundamentals.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Just asking....
Why do we never go for a long pass, etc. at the end of the half? We almost always take a knee or run up the gut regardless of circumstance.
On a slightly different note, has anyone else been impressed withDabo and the other Clemson coaches actually being geeked up and enthusiastic about their team? BTW, Clemson has long been one of my least favorite teams, but after watching their games against Auburn and FSU, you’ve got to think the coaches’ attitudes are contagious.
It's a gas, gas, gas.
by Keith Richards on Sep 25, 2011 12:27 PM EDT reply actions
I think it is entirely dependent on the circumstance. If the field position is favorable
they try to at least get in field goal range. If not, they run out the clock.
by Biggus Rickus on Sep 25, 2011 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions
We seem to be missing something .....
……. the confidence to go for it on 4th and short.
We shoulda went for it on the Walsh miss and shoulda punted later when we barely made it. Even a fool such as I could see that. BTW, Richt said in the AJC that the last call was a mistake.
It's a gas, gas, gas.
by Keith Richards on Sep 25, 2011 12:34 PM EDT reply actions
UGA had 19 3rd down plays
Just did a short breakdown of the game log and divided our 3rd down plays into 3rd and 4 or less, 3rd and 5-7 yds, and 3rd and 8+.
In the first quarter we had 2 plays of 3rd and 5-7 (1 pass and 1 rush) and 1 play of 3rd and 8+ (it is statistically recorded as a rush but if memory serves me properly it was a pass where Murray scrambled).
Second Quarter: 1 play from 3rd and 4 or less and it was a pass in the redzone (the pass interference call). We also had 3 3rd and 8+ whre there were 2 rushes (one was 3rd and 25) and 1 pass
Thrid Quarter: 2 plays from 4 or less (1 rush, 1 pass). 1 pass play from 5-7 and 3 3rd and longs (all three were rushes)
4th Quarter: By this point I think Bobo had not only let off the pedel, but had probably left the car. We had 4 3rd and short where we divided them into 2 rushes and 2 passes. we had 1 play from the 3rd and 5-7 range and it was a rush and we had one rushing play from 3rd and long.
To break it down another way:
3rd and short: 3 rushes and 4 passes. What happened to the days when we just lined up and ran the ball down the throat of the defense for 3-4 yards at a time?
3rd and 5-7: 2 rush and 2 pass. I like that balance. keeps the defenses guessing.
3rd and long: 2 passes (counting the scramble by Murray in the first quarter) and 6 (YES I TYPED SIX) rushes. Out of the 8 3rd and longs we had in the game UGA failed to convert 6 of them. the two that were converted was the scramble by Murray and a 29 yd burst by Crowell.
I HATE 35 (ORANGE)
So, we converted a 3rd and long by running?
When you throw on 3rd and long, your odds are very low of success. Better than if you run, to be sure, but not good. Take into account that you also have a much higher chance of disaster (a bad sack, with or without a fumble; an INT), and the idea that you “obviously” have to pass fades away. Take into account that one time we were deep in our own territory and our run bought us an easy 5 yards to improve our field position for the ensuing punt, and that on other plays we were in long FG range and losing yards on a sack would have been disastrous, etc. Take into account that Crowell had his 29 yard never-got-tackled run to the sideline on 3rd and 8, as you point out.
Why are we so upset, again?
similarly
you always fail on the majority of 3rd and longs. It just stands to reason. It’s not like if we passed then we would have gone 4/8 on those 3rd downs instead of 2/8. I mean, with the small sample size of a single game, sure anything is possible. But 2/8 on 3rd and long is pretty good.
The stat “3rd down conversion” is misleading for precisely this reason. Teams that convert 3rd downs are teams that are often in 3rd and short situations. There’s really no mystery to it.
It’s why some other new nerdy stat like “leverage” is the one we should really start looking at. (“Leverage” is how often you avoid 2nd and 3rd and longs, basically).
3rd down conversions
Well, 3rd down conversion efficiency is just another way of saying how effective you are on all three downs through that point, except for that theoretically possible freak team that manages to get into and convert 3rd and long all the time.
Well said...
and just from the eyeball analysis, I’m not opposed to getting Crowell the ball on a draw type play when the defense is thinking pass. Particularly with the difficulty we have had protecting Murray against BSU and SCAR in those situations.
I am less enthusiastic about it with backs other than IC (BOTIC henceforth).
Broadcasting live from a secure location underneath the Hell Gate Bridge
by The Quincy Carter of Accountants on Sep 25, 2011 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions
This works when you have set it up.
That’s why I dont like it when we call a wild dawg or spread. That draw has be set up well in advance. We have to be committed to a play action offense or not. You cant run play action just some of the time because play action is all about looks. 20 plays or more from 2 or 3 formations. This is where I do support the first and ten bomb – if it is set up. This is what David G did so well, great short passes, little runs, a brilliant play fake and then the deep pass. If you just come out and hurl it, the play action set up was never created.
I prefer we commit to the play action. But if we arent, then we need to run every wild, spread, get ball in space to play maker play we got, and just let the play action go.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
On a Positive note
The defense made Ole Miss take 8 or 9 3 and outs. Starting to like the 3rd and Grantham
I HATE 35 (ORANGE)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
