Though the new year did not get off to the best of starts for the Georgia Bulldogs, 2012 nevertheless is upon us, and with the turn of the calendar page comes the first edition of Dawg Bites for what promises to be a banner year. Here are four topics of note that are worth your attention this Wednesday morning:
1. You can’t spell "classy move" without S-E-C. The league office in Birmingham has announced that the week of January 15 through 22 will be declared "We Back Pat" Week. Last November 27, following her diagnosis at age 59 of early-onset Alzheimer’s-type dementia, Tennessee women’s basketball coach Pat Summitt established the Pat Summitt Foundation Fund to promote research, support services, and awareness with respect to the disease.
The 17 women’s basketball games and twelve men’s basketball games taking place that week will bring attention to the Fund and its objectives. Five Georgia Bulldogs basketball games will take place during "We Back Pat" Week. There has been a pronounced lack of good news on Rocky Top recently, and the best news our conference mates in Knoxville could receive would be word of a breakthrough in the treatment of this disease. Fortunately, such breakthroughs often are right around the corner, so, please, donate to the Pat Summitt Foundation Fund if you can. Andy Landers’s Lady Bulldogs will face Coach Summitt’s Lady Vols at 7:00 p.m. Eastern this Thursday.
2. I don’t want to talk about it. All right, let’s talk about it, but then we’re done talking about this, you hear me? Except, you know, probably not. Proclaiming the Outback Bowl “[m]ore of the [s]ame for the Dawgs,” Team Speed Kills characterized Georgia’s 2011 campaign as “a season in which most of the biggest games got away from them” that has led “to wonder just how much has actually changed.” I respectfully disagree.
I will grant the obvious and unexceptional point that the Bulldogs lost to the toughest teams they faced; so did most teams other than Louisiana State, but Georgia faced more of them than many teams did. Seeing as how the Red and Black beat the Tennessee Volunteers, Florida Gators, Auburn Tigers, and Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets in the same season for the first time in 30 years, though, it’s hard to argue that “most of the biggest games got away.” Likewise, when it comes to “how much has actually changed,” the 2010 Bulldogs went 1-4 in games decided by eight points or fewer, went 1-4 in true road games, and lost to the Colorado Buffaloes and Central Florida Knights, while the 2011 Bulldogs went 3-2 in games decided by eight points or fewer, went 4-0 in true road games, and didn’t lose to a team that finished with fewer than eleven wins. Team Speed Kills is quite right that the Red and Black aren’t where they need to be, but they’re quite a long way from where they were.
The more reasonable criticism of the Bulldogs’ second straight postseason setback came from Bill Connelly, who asked: “Mark Richt is one of my favorite head coaches, mostly because he has won games at a mostly high level, reflected pretty high character overall, and, in 2011, survived some generally ridiculous hot-seat rumors to win double-digit games and another SEC East title. I say all this to qualify the following question: Coach Richt, why in the hell were you playing to set up a long field goal in the first overtime??”
Actually, Senator Blutarsky has something of an answer for that inquiry, offered in response to B&B Michael’s unflinching exegesis (which was born of Michigan fans’ innate disdain for Michigan State), but, for me, the final word upon the subject was uttered by Tyler Dawgden, who opined that “the safe play is to go to what is working, not what hasn't. That isn't conservative, that is stupid. I'm not laying blame at Blair's feet, either. Kid has the yips. That is just the way it is. Also, he isn't responsible for blocking the middle of the line on a place kick.”
One aspect of this that interests me is the question whether we prefer the aggressive Mark Richt who went for it on fourth down early in the Outback Bowl or the conservative Mark Richt who tried to play it safe in overtime; both decisions, after all, ultimately cost the Red and Black three points that would have been the difference between victory and defeat, rendering them equal yet opposite causes of the setback. Of which decision are you more critical?
3. Decisions, decisions, recruiting . . . and otherwise. Presumably, you’ve already seen MaconDawg’s latest rundown of all the actual recruiting news. In the category of recruiting non-news, Mike Davis doesn’t like Florida---then again, who does?---but he is still considering more or less the rest of the SEC East, with no clear-cut frontrunner. Meanwhile, Davis’s is not the only decision that will impact the ‘Dawgs this offseason.
4. Look at the bright side! Yes, there’s a bright side. As I overlooked but tankertoad noted, the Georgia women’s basketball team opened SEC play with a win, earning SEC freshman of the week honors for Erika Ford. Four Bulldog football players have been invited to the Senior Bowl, the Georgia men’s tennis team will enter the spring as the SEC’s highest ranked squad at No. 4 nationally, and Jenna Buckley has decided to return to the Red and Black women’s soccer team for her final year of eligibility. Moreover, the Georgia Diving Invitational and Shootout, which is nowhere near as violent as it sounds, got underway on Tuesday, and three Athenian divers made the springboard finals on the first day of the three-day event. Last, but by all means least, Terry Bowden has been doing his best impersonation of a Georgia football player.
That should get you up to speed. Feel free to dive into your Wednesday morning fully briefed.
Go ‘Dawgs!
0 recs | 72 comments
I would characterize those two contrasting decisions . . .
as examples of doing the right thing at the wrong time. Early in the game, with a defense that looked sound, taking the 3 points would have been the right move. In overtime, with a placekicker hitting on barely over 50% of his attempts from 40+, trying to get inside of 40 would have been the right move. I for one find it hard to believe we couldn’t have completed that ubiquitous “back shoulder” route to either Mitchell or King to set Walsh up for a 30 yarder, at a minimum. Of course, if Aaron Murray had thrown a pick, or taken off scrambling and given up one of his classic “trying to do too much” fumbles, we would all be asking “why didn’t he just let his senior kicker kick it?”
I don’t have any problem with kicking it on third down. As many Georgia fans recall, the decision to do just that by George O’Leary helped secure one of the most heart-breaking losses of the Donnan era. I would also be curious whether prior to that play the coaches had asked Walsh where he wanted the ball. If he said, based on the wind and how he’d been kicking in warmups “I want it in the middle” then perhaps you have to give a little more quarter as well. Kickers are funny like that.
Ultimately the decision to kick it in the first overtime was a prime example of ignoring the most important rule of coaching in favor of overtime dogma. That rule is “put the ball in the hands of your best players and let them make a play.” I will always have a soft spot for Blair Walsh. Unfortunately people will now forget that over the years he’s pulled our bacon out of the fire a few times. But on this day he wasn’t our best player. Sending him in cold to try that field goal put him in a bad position. It’s the coach’s job to put players in a position to succeed, schematically, in terms of technique, and through in-game strategy. Mark Richt didn’t do that on Monday. He’s a thoughtful guy, and I imagine he’s thought about that ever since. Will he change? Probably not. He’s always going to be a bit on the conservative side. And that approach has won the SEC East and gotten him to Atlanta nearly 40% of the time over 11 seasons. Empirically, over the long run, it’s hard to argue with.
All that being said, if you had asked me on September 11, 2011 whether I’d be okay with 10 wins, a loss in the SEC Championship Game, and a trip to the Outback Bowl, I would have taken it without even looking behind door #2.
MaconDawg - January 4, 2012
As I said during the in-game thread...
… it would have been the right call by Mark Richt if Blair Walsh had made the kick.
Mark Richt is supposed to know more about his team than we do, so at that particular moment during the game, if he thought that his kicker had his head in the right place and was confident and ready to go… well, then ostensibly he knows more about his kicker’s condition than we do. Perhaps that simply wasn’t the case, however, because every Dawg fan that’s been paying attention knows that Walsh was barely 50% from 40+ yards this year.
I mean, one might argue that settling the game on something with slightly better odds than a coin-flip might have been an appropriate ending for this match between two substantially identical teams. I doubt that’s what Richt was thinking, though.
At any rate, I certainly would have at least tried to pass the ball. The worst that could have happened is an interception, which would have simply sent us to another overtime, which happened anyway.
vineyarddawg - January 4, 2012
This.
My only criticism, at least of that one sequence in the game, was the decision to run to the middle of the field on 2nd down to set up for the FG. According to Kevin Butler after the game, this season, Walsh had missed a majority of his kicks to the right. By moving the ball to the middle of the field, we, essentially, created the miss, as Walsh wasn’t that far off. (Admittedly, I have zero idea if Walsh requested where he wanted the ball to be placed.)
Since we were already on the left hash mark, why not take one shot to get at least 7-15 yards closer? We were afraid of a Murray mistake. Thus, we give away a down, and, in the process, moved the ball the exact distance needed to miss, rather than make, the long FG.
I read somewhere Murray’s chance at an INT was around 2.5%. Thus, some are criticizing Richt for being to cautious, when, in fact, he was being to risky, as the 40% chance Walsh would miss the kick was exponentially greater than the 2.5% chance of a Murray INT or fumble in that situation.
Additionally, the lack of confidence in Murray and the offense to get the job done, likely carried over to the next sequence of downs. Immediately after sending the message to our offense that we didn’t trust them by settling, instantly, for a long FG, we expected them to turn around and score a TD after the miss, but, instead, we proved Richt “right” by doing nothing, almost turning it over, and losing yards…We were toast at that point.
Jman781 - January 4, 2012
Jman and Tyler Dawgden are right--
The problem wasn’t conservatism. It was just a dumb sequence of calls. If you have a struggling kicker, intentionally setting up a long FG is dumb. We rarely had any mishandled snaps this year, so going for the FG before fourth down is dumb. If you’re afraid of fumbling, running on first down is dumb. If you’re actually trying to pick up some yardage, running is even dumber when the other team has shutting down the run for the last 30 minutes.
Coach Richt undoubtedly knows more about football than I do, and he is undoubtedly a better coach than I could ever be. But that series of playcalls makes absolutely no sense to any rational person.
Spears - January 4, 2012
I guess that somes it up for me.
It was weaksauce not to use 3 downs to get some yardage. If you are so mistrusting of your O to get a TO, then we got a lot more problems. I still cant believe we kneeled the ball for a 2 yard loss. This makes absolutely no sense. The “kick it on 3rd down in case of a bad snap or fumble” – well, I have seen that be an issue maybe once in my life. Our kicking unit is generally good. Why not try and get a first down? At least try.
Speaking of first downs, that’s the story of the game. No matter where you want to place the blame, the failure to get first downs hurt us both at the end of regulation, and in OT.
tankertoad - January 4, 2012
Our offense does a good job scoring, but a bad job at lots of other things.
For me, the offensive play of the year was the pass to Conley for a first down in the Cocktail Party. It was gutsy, it was well-executed, and it asserted control of the game.
first and thom - January 4, 2012
Or slam a back in the middle to the right side
it’s not like we haven’t called Thomas, Samuel, etc up the guy relentlessly. So have one of them stick it in there, gain maybe 1-2 yards, if not break one loose for a 1st down. Then you get the ball where you want, plus potentially getting closer instead of farther away.
Mr. Sanchez - January 4, 2012
Yea, no kidding. We mindlessly run up the gut, until the time
when mindlessly running up the gut may have made sense.
I will be mad about this for a long, long time. And as much as I get on Bobo, this is on Richt. This is not the RIcht that was the OC for two Heisman award winners and the winningest % in football in the 90s.
tankertoad - January 4, 2012
I recced both your comments here
because I’m catching up with the blog after being out of town. I still maintain that I"m never, ever going to get over that first overtime sequence, especially on the heels of yet another spectacular Boykin play.
Cherokee's Grip - January 6, 2012
Sadly,
Samuel + Thomas = 11 carries/zero yards.
Of course, they were the only guys to get the ball late in the game.
NRBQ - January 4, 2012
Disagree...
even if Walsh makes the kick, he wasn’t in the best position to succeed. That’s the coaches job, to put their players in the best position to be successful. Whether Walsh makes the kick or not, Richt made the wrong call by making things more difficult than they should have been.
Mr. Sanchez - January 4, 2012
I agree with this, and what you said is almost word for word what I said in my first podcast,
“put players in the best position to succeed.”
tankertoad - January 4, 2012
Amen, gentlemen.
Spears - January 4, 2012
The overtime field goal problem
Two factors worth noting when analyzing what Richt should have done in overtime.
1) over the season Blair Walsh has had dramatically different results on field goals of greater than forty yards than field goals of less than forty yards. Walsh has made 78% of his field goals inside of 40 yards and 41% outside of 40 yards.
2) running a play from the 25 yard line (i.e. a 42 yard field goal) against Michigan State would not necessarily have gained yards. Georgia ran 71 plays against MSU. Of them, 21 (or about 30 % of the time) resulted in losses of yardage (a total of 63 yards lost or exactly 3 per play). Meaning Georgia gained about 400 yards on its 50 positive plays (8 yards per play when they gained yards). So I calculate the expected value of a play to be (-3 × 30%) + (8 × 70%) = 2.9 yard gain.
The tricky part is that if you have a loss on the first play, you are (I think), less likely to gain yards back on the subsequent plays since your options are limited. MSU had tackles for loss far more frequently against the run than the pass. I think the correct strategy in overtime would have been to attempt short passes until you either got inside the 20 or it was fourth down (or we happened to score) and then kick the field goal. The difference between getting seven yards on the plays prior to the kick instead of two is significant.
So to summarize, I think playing for the field goal makes sense in that situation. However I think we should have played for it differently than we did. Running the ball on first down seems clearly wrong to me. But it’s not an easy call – it took me time to work that out that Bobo/Richt wouldn’t have. Well, I guess they kind of did have it, since MSU was on offense first and there was a coin toss and all that….and they should know Walsh’s real range before the game started…..
The Quincy Carter of Accountants - January 4, 2012
Walsh's kicking stats by distance.....forgot to link
http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/player/_/stat/kicking/sort/fieldGoalsMade
The Quincy Carter of Accountants - January 4, 2012
Mitchell x 3 solves that problem.
tankertoad - January 4, 2012
I agree.
Hell if you’re going to kick it on third down after a run forward and a run backward, just kick it on first down and try to catch them napping.
The Quincy Carter of Accountants - January 4, 2012
This...
I have zero problem with trying to kick a FG. Heck, even Okie State kicked a FG to beat Stanford after being stopped on the one-yard line.
I simply have an issue, as you said, with the unwillingness to try and move the ball closer, especially given Walsh’s woes this season. Sure, the run could have gone for a TD; however, that was highly unlikely.
Orson. Charles. Those are the two words that make the most sense to me in that situation, had those two words not been left out of the GNB.
Jman781 - January 4, 2012
I apologize...
I believe the playcalling in OT was all CMR, not Bobo…
Jman781 - January 4, 2012
The decision to take a knee and kick was CMR.
The failure to find ways to utlize talent like our TEs and running play action spread™ is CMB.
tankertoad - January 4, 2012
I agree.
There should have been no OT.
CaptJackSparrow - January 5, 2012
I agree completely.
The pass was far more effective than the run all day long, but we were afraid to use it because the most recent previous pass (by Michigan State in the previous overtime possession) ended in an interception. However, absent a highly unlikely pick-six of 75+ yards, the worst-case scenario was a turnover that would have forced another overtime period, so the risk of passing the ball would seem to be a good deal less than the potential reward. Heck, a first down wouldn’t even have been necessary; pick up eight yards on three short passes (which seems reasonable), and it’s the difference between a 42-yard field goal and a 34-yard field goal. That’s the difference between winning and losing.
T Kyle King - January 4, 2012
Just saying ....
…. will next year show improvement or just be more of the same (Carlton up the middle, bombs away, no killer instinct, etc.)?
Keith Richards - January 4, 2012
SOCCER SOCCER WOOOOOO SOCCER
Sorry, I couldn’t think of a more obtrusive title. :-)
- When I read the statement about Jenna Buckley returning for her final year of eligibility, I thought to myself, “Is that a thing now? Do women’s soccer players leave early?” In Buckley’s case, though, she took a medical redshirt year as a freshman and is going to stay in school and play a fifth year instead of graduating after 4 years, which she says in the article was her original intention. (Or, in other words, the “returning for her final year of eligibility” statement in her case means what it really probably should always mean.)
- Also passing under the radar during December, though, was this very awesome announcement: Ashley Baker has been placed on the list of potential callups for England in the 2012 Olympic soccer tournament. (It will be called the “British” soccer team for the Olympics, but because of the vagaries of the soccer world, it’ll still be the English team only.) Ashley has already seen some work with the England youth teams in the past, but a full-international callup would be a great accomplishment for her and, quite honestly, for Georgia Soccer!
vineyarddawg - January 4, 2012
Agreed, as Urban Meyer would say. . .
It’s a big deal. That would be the relative equivalent of a Georgia basketball player getting picked for the Olympic Dream Team (you know, assuming Guam had veto power over whether there actually was a team fielded). And what with London hosting the games, I assume it would be a huge deal for her.
MaconDawg - January 4, 2012
PUERTO RICO WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS DISRESPECT, SIR...
… and will prevent the USMNT from ever taking the field again unless you repay your insubordination with many bags of chicarrones and Jennifer Lopez CD’s.
vineyarddawg - January 4, 2012
""light bulb comes on""
How far can she kick a football?
CaptJackSparrow - January 5, 2012
Ha!
The Quincy Carter of Accountants - January 5, 2012
It's worked well before
Mr. Sanchez - January 5, 2012
That was what gave me the thought.
CaptJackSparrow - January 5, 2012
I won't say that I'm particularly incensed about either decision...
…although I would have advocated going for the points early in the game. I understand what Richt was trying to accomplish in going for it, but to me, that early in the game with a solid defense, you always go for the points. You never know how things work out though…if Richt goes for the FG and gets it, Brandon Boykin doesn’t get the safety, etc.
As for the decision in overtime, it’s not the decision I have a problem with, it’s the methods used to go about kicking the ball. If you want to play to not turn the ball over, then run the ball up the middle with your most sure-handed back and try to at least get to the 22…that gives you a 39 yarder, which exponentially helps our chances given Walsh’s numbers beyond 39 yards. What I don’t want to see, however, is a run to the outside for two yards, only to have the quarterback take a knee to center it back up the very next play and essentially render the preceding play useless. Honestly, it makes me just want to scream WHAT THE F*#% ARE YOU DOING, RICHT?! The center the ball up play is to be used when you’ve had a big gain on a previous play to get you into field goal range in the closing seconds of a game…it’s not to be used after you JUST RAN THE BALL OUTSIDE and have to center it back up.
Finally, the decision with which I really must quibble is the decision to not pass the ball on 3rd and 8 with two minutes left. We were faced with pretty much the same scenario in the Cocktail Party, we went for it, and iced the game. Why, then, did we go conservative in this scenario? MSU clearly had our number in the second half, Jenkins had gone out hurt and we knew our defense was gassed…why put them back out on the field?
hailtogeorgia - January 4, 2012
This, all of it.
tankertoad - January 4, 2012
Yep.
Precisely, hailtogeorgia.
T Kyle King - January 4, 2012
"why put them back out on the field?"
Because Bobo has been hiding behind the defense all year and putting them out there to win games. Good teams can win the game on offense. We’re not there on offense yet. That must be fixed.
Think the Saints (if they were missing Ingram AND Sproles) would run it up the middle 3 times and punt the ball when a first down wins it?
Would ANY really good team do that? Or would they just get the first down and win the game? If you get the first down, you can’t lose. Just go 10 yards. We almost lost to Vandy using that same strategy. When we will learn?
DocSkraynj - January 4, 2012 via iPhone app
And we did the same mess against Ole Miss, it's just that Ole Miss is horrible.
tankertoad - January 4, 2012
You could have said anybody but them :)
I agree though.
CaptJackSparrow - January 5, 2012
pt #2 Team Speed Kills article
I too get annoyed with articles like that. Its almost like the guy who twists stats to say anything he needs. With enough qualifications, all TSK (or anyone) is essentially saying is: Georgia is not in the top 2 playing for the national title…. well, duh !
esquiredawg - January 4, 2012 via iPhone app
When I read that on TSK
I started typing a reply but figured why award his rambling. IN CMR’s career in the SEC he has seven 10-win seasons, the only other current SEC coaches that can match/break that is: Les Miles; he has 5 in 7 SEC seasons and Nick Saban 6 in 10 SEC seasons.
If cocknfire (TSK) calls for terminations based on a .642 winning percentage – 4 year trend (CMR’s current – and worst – 4 year winning percentage) as he alludes to in that article, then Spurrier should have been fired after 2008, and again in 2009, and again in 2010 and should be job hunting as we speak (Spurrier’s current 4 year winning percentage – and his best at USCJr – is .642). Les Miles may have been on the hot seat following the 2009 season at LSU if you look at 4-year trends (he had 2 sub 10+ win seasons in that cycle).
Dawg2011 - January 4, 2012
To be fair, I don't think C&F has ever called for Mark Richt to be fired.
He’s commented on the reality of the hot seat, and he’s defined the term “hot seat” to a greater degree than almost any other commentator. I quarrel with his analysis, and I think his South Carolina fandom causes him to be biased against the Bulldogs to a greater degree than he is biased against any other SEC team (though not to a greater degree than, or perhaps even as great a degree as, my Georgia fandom would cause me to be biased against Auburn if I were writing for Team Speed Kills), but I don’t think he’s advocating a termination.
T Kyle King - January 4, 2012
I may have misconstrued his words but..
in his initial piece he printed this:
and then in a reply to vineyard he (to me) explained some of his reasoning for the above:
Dawg2011 - January 4, 2012
Fair enough.
I agree C&F deserves some criticism; I just didn’t want to criticize him excessively or unfairly. One of my new year’s resolutions was to try to make nice with our South Carolina brethren . . . though, admittedly, that same attempt in 2011 met with only modest success. :)
T Kyle King - January 5, 2012
I thought there analysis was a bit weak as well....
I think their conclusion, that Georgia hasn’t advanced very far is incorrect but not indefensible.
A pretty quick look at 2010 vs. 2011 stats would have told them that Georgia has improved in total offense, total defense, scoring defense, first downs gained, first downs allowed, turnovers forced, sacks, and making big plays. Also they went from losing seven games to winning 10.
There are clearly some things Georgia doesn’t do well such as: running the football, protecting the passer, throwing the ball to only members of your own team and kicking field goals. My complaint with the TSK article is that they chose to summarize this as “didn’t finish games,” or some similar platitude. Well that’s true, but he might as well have said, Georgia didn’t win all their games, last year, they still didn’t win them all this year, what’s really changed.
Maybe the point he was trying to make was that, all the examples of improvement one could cite statistically are not relevant because we lose big games. I don’t know. In any case, it wasn’t that interesting.
The Quincy Carter of Accountants - January 4, 2012
We've advanced from last year...
but from 2008 or 2009?
Mr. Sanchez - January 4, 2012
Unquestionably.
In every discrete category, no, but the 2011 Bulldogs were markedly better overall than the 2008, 2009, and 2010 Bulldogs. They’re not where they need to be, but they’re better than they’ve been since 2007.
T Kyle King - January 4, 2012
I'd agree on improving over 09...
not so much 2008. I’d say we’re about the same, except for a vastly improved D of course since Grantham >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martinez
Mr. Sanchez - January 4, 2012
No way.
In 2011, we won the East, only looked bad for 60 minutes in one game (in the first game of the season), played very solid defense and statistically pretty solid offense, won some games over mediocre competition that were close on the scoreboard but not close on the stat sheet, whipped a mediocre Auburn team, and met or surpassed preseason expectations despite significant question marks in several areas.
In 2008, we didn’t come close to winning the East, looked bad for 60 minutes in at least two games (both of which were blowout losses, one early and one late), played atrocious defense, won some games over mediocre competition that were every bit as close on the field as they were on the scoreboard, barely escaped against a mediocre Auburn team, and fell far short of meeting preseason expectations despite having Matthew Stafford, Knowshon Moreno, and A.J. Green.
The 2011 Bulldogs would beat the crap out of the 2008 Bulldogs.
T Kyle King - January 5, 2012
Neither one could beat a good team
so since both won 10 games, could we have had a double loss?
Mr. Sanchez - January 5, 2012
Maybe, . . .
. . . but I’m taking the team that matches a Mike Bobo offense (2011) against a Willie Martinez defense (2008) to beat the team that matches a Mike Bobo offense (2008) against a Todd Grantham defense (2011).
T Kyle King - January 5, 2012
The only thing there I like is Grantham
and the overall point in my opinion is a decent team, that loses against every good team they face, loses ugly against the better teams (with LSU being the only one on par with those 08 Bama and Florida teams, and while we played them close for a half, over 60 minutes that game was a butt whipping same as the 08 games). There are questions of complacency, consistency, and fulfilling talent level.
Mr. Sanchez - January 5, 2012
One key difference:
We could make FGs in 2008.
As such, there may be an advantage when both teams start settling for FGs…
Jman781 - January 5, 2012
Scratch that...
We were dreadful then, too.
Jman781 - January 5, 2012
FR Blair Walsh or SR Blair Walsh
another tip in the favor of this year’s team in that matchup, when Fab would work that stupid corner kick to be covered by deep, DEEP reserve walk-ons, Boykin would burn them for at least one if not multiple DBs.
Mr. Sanchez - January 5, 2012
Sorry...
… I guess I was the only one who couldn’t let it go unremarked-upon. But I think he at least acknowledged that his position was not entirely well-thought-out (or, at least, well-supported), which is kind of all I wanted to see.
vineyarddawg - January 4, 2012
I will make it very simple:
That OT debacle didn’t look like any kind of manly football. It looked downright pathetic. Even if your O line stinks and you are worried about a TO, you still have to ask your men to give it hell. What kind of message did this team receive? Even if Walsh makes it, it was still pathetic. Hey guys, I don’t trust you to do anything, so I am just going to kneel it out and pray. I am not even on the team and I feeel like I got punched in the gut.
And it smacks of our horrible game plan. All we needed was a couple of slants, outs, or that unstoppable back pass to Mitchell. We didn’t do it all game, so of course we didn’t do it in OT.
5 yards is all we needed. And this whole hash mark, middle of the field stuff, whatever. Walsh is a senior. He kicks the ball where it ends up at after we try and get a first down for 3 tries. Placing the ball is what you do when you are trying to kick a 60 yarder with 2 seconds left.
tankertoad - January 4, 2012
Manly football
Maybe that is the best way to describe what is missing. I was shocked to see CMR taking off his headset and laughing/talking with MSU #99 during the challenge at the end of regulation. It seems to me that maybe he could have spent that time planning how to get another first down or asking his men to give it hell or at least not being friendly to our opponent . MSU was fighting like mad for an additional 13 seconds and we were busy bonding with the enemy.
TerryDawg - January 4, 2012
I don't have much to add.
I’m fine with being aggressive early in the game. I was happy CMR made that call after all the criticism in last year’s bowl game. However, I’m torn about the OT FG call. My father and I were both there, and he has no particular loyalties to either team. He thinks it was a perfectly reasonable call that many other teams would make in that situation. I don’t have enough experience with college football in general to know if he’s right, but I lean more towards thinking that you have to show confidence in your offense when everybody knows your kicker sucks this year. What does it say about the O if CMR thinks they’re a riskier bet than our crappy kicker?
One thing I’d like to point out for those who weren’t there (and apologies if another attendee has already told this story) is that there was a big difference in team attitude at the end of regulation. During the commercial break before the OT rules were explained, the whole MSU team was huddled up and dancing/hopping around to the music playing in the stadium. For the entire commercial break. Our guys were standing and mulling around aimlessly, barely talking to each other. Towards the end of the break, I saw one or two of our guys start to hop around and try to get everyone else excited, but it never caught on.
I can only speak to how it looked from the stands, but MSU looked thrilled to still be in the game, and our guys just looked worn out. I remarked to my father that it wasn’t a good sign, and I guess I was right.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 4, 2012
Thanks, MidnightFrost1701.
They did show that on television, but it was a point worth repeating.
T Kyle King - January 4, 2012
From the upper deck...
I noticed the same thing in regard to post-regulation play. Their guys were totally hyped and we looked a little pooped/out of it – maybe they were in shock. Ironically, most of the post game analyses I had with folks coming out of the stadium had less to do with Walsh (although everyone felt bad for him) than with the two incredibly ill-timed interceptions. I told one guy I’m not sure who MSU named as their player of the game, but it should have been Murray. Love that kid, but I’m starting to wonder if he’s just color blind.
Lady Dawg - January 4, 2012 via mobile
That's technically true...
… but we still got an interception almost immediately after that, and would have won the game if Walsh had made his field goal.
2007’s Florida game notwithstanding, I think all the jumping around wasn’t as telling as the announcers thought it was. They made it seem like our guys were just lolling around discouraged, but they could have just as easily been remaining focused on the task at hand. At any rate, if our field goal kicker had kicked the ball 2 or 3 yards to the left, the team that was excited and jumping around would have lost.
vineyarddawg - January 4, 2012
I can see that argument as well
The great thing about football is debating the ifs, ands,and buts. But (there I go), from the stands MSU just seemed to have a greater sense of urgency – and there was a palpable momentum. I’ll have to go back and watch the tape and see how it was presented. The guys certainly didn’t quit, though, and I thought they played hard.
I would add too that it was a pretty bizarre game atmosphere – I’ve never been to the Outback Bowl, but I was pretty disappointed in the attendance. Made for a half dead crowd – not to mention those meager few of us in the upper deck were damn near frozen by that 3rd overtime. If I didn’t have a dawg in the hunt, I would say a 3OT game makes for an exciting game – unfortunately, though, losing any game just blows.
Lady Dawg - January 4, 2012 via mobile
+100 cocktails for being there in person, Lady Dawg!
When I first saw the game on TV, I momentarily got excited because I thought there was a massive amount of fans clad in red in the stands. Then I realized that the empty seats in the stadium were painted red.
For whatever reason, nobody ever gets excited about going to Tampa, and this year even more so, since Georgia had two special games in the Dome that fans had already paid extra money to go see. And some, like me, might have been saving their cash for a trip to Columbia, Missouri, next year.
Or, you know, maybe the Outback Bowl just sucks and we should drop it in the SEC bowl rotation. (This is the option I prefer.)
vineyarddawg - January 4, 2012
Ms. Palsgraf, your train is leaving. . .
Okay, for all you lawyers out there, I still say the proximate cause for the loss was the defense’s caving on the last Michigan State drive. We were winning 27 to 20 and had them pinned at their 15 with less than two minutes to play. All we had to do was hold them and in that we failed miserably. We did not disrupt their drive in the least. It reminded me of Willie Martinez’s much-ballyhooed “bend but don’t break” defensive strategy that cost us so many games we were leading at halftime and it just sucked. That’s where we gave the game away. Yes, Bobo’s offense could be more effective. Yes, it would be nice if Walsh made the long field goal. Yes, it would have been worthy of highlight reels the world over if we had advanced the ball on the third down in overtime on a sneaky dump pass to Mitchell, King, Charles, or someone else and then kicked a game-winning field goal on fourth down, as decorum apparently dictates. But we lost the game because we did not prevent them from driving the ball 85 yards down our throats, scoring, and taking all the momentum into overtime.
And it just sucked.
I’m not ripping Grantham. I just sorely disappointed in the outcome of that game.
College Buddy - January 4, 2012
Last Michigan State drive in regulation, I mean
College Buddy - January 4, 2012
In their defense. (So to speak)
I imagine they were wore slap out.
CaptJackSparrow - January 5, 2012
Agreed.
Plenty of blame to go around in this one.
Well played on the Palsgraf reference, by the way. Professor Sentell would be proud.
[Insert disturbingly Freudian Benjamin Cardozo water-related metaphor here.]
T Kyle King - January 5, 2012
R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
God bless RPS, Jr. He made a basic class very interesting. I’ve got a friend of mine who father (Superior Ct. judge) had him his first year teaching. Said he was dry as a bone. Apparently after 30 plus years (when I had him) you can get your Torts class to a razor sharp experience. Good times.
AttyinDuluth - January 5, 2012
After watching the Fiesta Bowl and Sugar Bowl...
I am not as angry right now as I was immediately after the loss to Michigan State due to the missed field goals. I am going to have to say this. This has got to be the year of missed goals that changed the outcome of many crucial games.
LSU vs. Alabama – At least 3 missed field goals kept Alabama from them being in the SEC championship. Lucky for them, they get a second chance at playing for the crystal trophy next week
TCU vs. Boise State – A blocked field goal prevented B State from a perfect regular season
and a BCS bowl
Iowa vs. Oklahoma State – Missed field goals ruined Ok State at a chance to play LSU for the National Championship
Georgia vs. Michigan State in Outback Bowl – Well, we already know the story
Stanford vs. Oklahoma State in Fiesta Bowl – Missed field goal in OT
Michigan vs. Virgina Tech in Sugar Bowl – Missed field goal in OT
As much as I would like a potent offense and a stymieing defense, I also would want a kicker who can make the kicks at crucial points during the football game especially at the end.
thefirstgenesis - January 5, 2012
Iowa State* vs. Oklahoma State not Iowa vs. Oklahoma State, typo
thefirstgenesis - January 5, 2012
Excellent point, thefirstgenesis.
Incidentally, good for you for sticking it out thus far; I was really into bowl season, right up until our game. I watched the first hour of the TicketCity Bowl, then I switched over to the Outback Bowl and watched every minute of it. The instant Blair Walsh’s field goal attempt was blocked—-I mean, the instant it happened—-and we lost, I turned off the television, and I literally have not watched a down of college football since. I’m not sure I’m going to watch a down of college football until next Labor Day weekend, to tell you the truth. This was as gut-wrenching a loss as Georgia has sustained in a long, long time.
T Kyle King - January 5, 2012
Oh but watching Clemson last night made it not so bad.
There is comfort to be had in the remaining games.
hbtd - January 5, 2012
When Georgia loses...
I stop all sports watching, especially college football.
AttyinDuluth - January 5, 2012
I normally am in 100% agreement...
… but in this case, I’ve forced myself to watch the games that have come on TV since. We are far too close to the no-college-football-on-TV wasteland, and I will need the nourishment to survive, even if I don’t feel like ingesting it now.
Besides, I get to gloat with smug amusement at the realization that our defense is better than pretty much every defense in every single BCS game that has been played thus far. We just had the misfortune to run into a team that was pretty much a carbon-copy of ourselves. (And they were the best team statistically in the B1G this year, while most people put us at 4th or 5th in the SEC. Think about that.)
vineyarddawg - January 5, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawg Sports to post a comment.