The NCAA has handed down the sanctions to the USC Trojans and folks, it ain't pretty. Lane Kiffin's program will lose twenty scholarships. That's a heck of a lot of premium athletes that he won't get to sign. My guess is, with conference re-alignment about happen, USC is headed to the bottom of the new BigPac-Whatever.
Now, perhaps of greater importance to the 2010 Trojans is the fact that the NCAA has imposed a 2-year ban on postseason play for the team. In the NCAA rules, players in a program that receives a ban covering their remaining eligibilty are free to leave the program and accept a scholarship anywhere, and NOT have to sit out a year.
That means that USC's Juniors and Seniors are essentially Free Agents. Let the cherry picking begin!
"But Dukes!" you say, "USC wasn't very good last year...are there any players WORTH poaching?"
Let's have a look, shall we?
Right off the bat, Allen Bradford jumps out at me. The Senior RB was a BEAST last season, running over people and bulling his way to first downs and TDs. He was 2nd on the team in rushing, and was recruited to USC to win championships - no chance at that now. I'm sure there are a number of schools looking to fill a slot at RB who could use someone like this. Houston Nutt may already have him on speed dial.
Then, of course, there's journeyman Mitch Mustain. Mitch has already proven that school allegiance is of no matter to him, after ditching the Razorbacks for the Trojans in hopes of leading a team to the promised land. Well, it's no secret that he feels a bit jilted by his chosen bedfellow. Mustain was a winner in all 8 of his collegiate starts....surely SOMEONE would like to have that kind of a signal caller - even as a backup. If he were to hold out for a "Start Right Now" opportunity, I don't know that he'd get it at a major institution. Not many coaches are apt to bring a kid in and hand over the keys after one summer, unless they REALLY think he can deliver a title. Even Favre couldn't do that...and he's been doing this for a looooong time.
Junior Ronald Johnson caught 34 passes and 3 touchdowns last season as the team's #2 receiver. What's more important is that he's set to be the #1 guy this year with the exit of Top Man Williams. If only there were a team out there who might be looking to add depth in its receiving corps...
Junior linebackers Malcolm Smith and Chris Gallipo are the team's top returning tacklers, and Gallipo was second in interceptions last season. Both are Los Angeles guys. With the way UCLA played defense last year, you can't tell me they couldn't use some more talent.
The interior defensive line could be particularly hard-hit, as four out of the five defensive tackles currently on the roster are in the "takeable" group. USC does benefit from having young defensive ends...but if they wanted to leave, they could still be part of a title team somewhere else long before they'll get that chance at USC.
All-told, there are 52 Juniors and Seniors on the USC Trojans football team. This isn't a team where these kids should hold a heck of a lot of loyalty to their coaching staff, either...as this staff is brand new. None of these Juniors and Seniors owe anything to Lane Kiffin and his gang. If other programs come calling, I suspect many will entertain the thought of leaving. Now, that's not to say there will be a mass-exodous. There are plenty of reasons why players wouldn't leave - the most major of which would be assimilating into a new school after spending so many years in LA. That kid is going to have to look at credits transferring; will he be set back in his major; will he want to leave his friends (possibly family).
I have to think that the grand majority will stay right where they are. But, with the right coaxing, I think some star-level players could be pulled away with the promise of New-Years bowls and championships, which are always good for getting the eyes of pro scouts and awards voters.
What the decision will most likely affect is the future of Trojan football. How badly do you want to go to USC when you know you don't get a shot at post-season play? Also, as players leave USC, and as new recruits opt to sign with schools who have championship possibilities, USC's swagger and win totals will diminish. How then will the USC powers-that-be get kids to come to the "once-great" (read: great when we were breaking rules) institution? It will certainly be interesting to see just how good of a salesman Lane Kiffin is, when he's not able to use the "We're in the BCS EVERY YEAR" ploy.
Can you see the living room pitch - Yes ma'am, I think your son has a chance to come in and really help us win all of our games - and he'll even be home for Christmas!
HA!
Go Dawgs!
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
"He makes other fast people look...Not Fast."
Friday, June 4, 2010 - David Hale posted the numbers from the Post-Spring Combine at UGA.
Approximately two minutes later, the blogosphere imploded under the weight of fan scrutiny.
Luckily, there was a self-redundant system in place to restore the world's internets and we were soon up and running. Now we can all chew this numbers up, see how they taste, then decide to finish the meal or simply spew them out onto the ground. Many folks are spewin'.
I have to ask, though....why? The only numbers people are having trouble with are the 40 times. I have yet to see anyone ask how Orson Charles can throw 225 up 26 times on the Bench Press, while Kiante Tripp only gets 25 reps, and Deangelo Tyson 24. Perhaps we should have Charles at DT, he's obviously stronger.
No one has mentioned yet that 290 lb Abry Jones can apparently outjump 170 lb Rontavious Wooten for distance.
No, the thing everyone seems to be so undone about is Cornelius Washington's 4.29 40 time. Man, that thing has people bent all out of shape. When it's a corner or a wideout running an insane 40 like that, people just saw "Wow! He's fast." But, since it's a linebacker, people are immediately blaming the coaches for falsifying numbers, for fudging, for embellishing.
While the 40 is a decent measure of overall speed, in the method of timing UGA uses, the advantage goes to a player who can get off the ball. This may be what you're seeing in Washington's time. Many players have their numbers decreased by as much as a few tenths of a second because their "firing" motion is poor. If you have your back hand up above your head, and drop it before you move, the clock starts. By the time you swing it through, and fire off the line, you're already being timed, and have made no progress toward the endline.
It's quite possible that Washington, who we know to be a strong pass-rusher, has a very good start to his 40. If his initial movement is propelling him FORWARD, instead of DOWNWARD, he is going to gain a bit of an advantage over the clock. Then, it's up to his athleticism to hit a great time. Washington is 6'5 and a specimen of an athlete. Many believe that height will hurt him in running, but with the success of Usain Bolt, sports science has seen new advantages to big-bodied runners. It's all about STRIDE - movement along the plane. Some people bounce up and down too much when they run, some hang in the air just a bit too long. Perhaps Washington's stride keeps him more grounded, enabling each step to drive him closer to the end-line instead of the skyline.
Or, perhaps he simply got the best of the timer on that particular run.
Whatever it was that resulted in Washington's unbelievable time, you should take it with a grain of salt. Looking at the report from the coaches, we see that nearly half the team beat the AVERAGE for their group at the NFL combine. That's great. Some people say that's ridiculous, that there's no way we could have that many athletes of that caliber. I say we damn well BETTER have that many athletes of that caliber. Don't forget, these NFL Combine numbers aren't numbers for all the players currently IN the NFL...they're numbers for the college players hoping to make it INTO the NFL. That means you have your elite 1st round pick guys...and you have guys who may ultimately get signed to a practice squad, and wash out after a couple of years. Hell, I could have gone to the combine. There's a wide range of athleticism there. So, to have guys on our team beat the AVERAGE isn't only understandable, it's expected.
Look, what we should take from this is that we have a number of very good athletes on the team this year. When they take the field, they are going to be capable of performing at a level we as fans haven't seen in a while. That should excite us. They're not going to get out on the field and push weight. They aren't going to long-jump. But, they're going to be able to use their superior athleticism to play the greatest sport ever conceived - football.
A 40-yard dash will rarely come into play on a saturday...and one by an OLB is even less likely. If an OLB is running a 40-yard dash on gameday, something has gone horribly wrong (Or, he's chasing a scrambling QB from sideline to sideline). Still, how nice will it be to see an OLB who can run down a backside play for a loss? Oh man, that'll be sweet.
Go Dawgs.
Approximately two minutes later, the blogosphere imploded under the weight of fan scrutiny.
Luckily, there was a self-redundant system in place to restore the world's internets and we were soon up and running. Now we can all chew this numbers up, see how they taste, then decide to finish the meal or simply spew them out onto the ground. Many folks are spewin'.
I have to ask, though....why? The only numbers people are having trouble with are the 40 times. I have yet to see anyone ask how Orson Charles can throw 225 up 26 times on the Bench Press, while Kiante Tripp only gets 25 reps, and Deangelo Tyson 24. Perhaps we should have Charles at DT, he's obviously stronger.
No one has mentioned yet that 290 lb Abry Jones can apparently outjump 170 lb Rontavious Wooten for distance.
No, the thing everyone seems to be so undone about is Cornelius Washington's 4.29 40 time. Man, that thing has people bent all out of shape. When it's a corner or a wideout running an insane 40 like that, people just saw "Wow! He's fast." But, since it's a linebacker, people are immediately blaming the coaches for falsifying numbers, for fudging, for embellishing.
While the 40 is a decent measure of overall speed, in the method of timing UGA uses, the advantage goes to a player who can get off the ball. This may be what you're seeing in Washington's time. Many players have their numbers decreased by as much as a few tenths of a second because their "firing" motion is poor. If you have your back hand up above your head, and drop it before you move, the clock starts. By the time you swing it through, and fire off the line, you're already being timed, and have made no progress toward the endline.
It's quite possible that Washington, who we know to be a strong pass-rusher, has a very good start to his 40. If his initial movement is propelling him FORWARD, instead of DOWNWARD, he is going to gain a bit of an advantage over the clock. Then, it's up to his athleticism to hit a great time. Washington is 6'5 and a specimen of an athlete. Many believe that height will hurt him in running, but with the success of Usain Bolt, sports science has seen new advantages to big-bodied runners. It's all about STRIDE - movement along the plane. Some people bounce up and down too much when they run, some hang in the air just a bit too long. Perhaps Washington's stride keeps him more grounded, enabling each step to drive him closer to the end-line instead of the skyline.
Or, perhaps he simply got the best of the timer on that particular run.
Whatever it was that resulted in Washington's unbelievable time, you should take it with a grain of salt. Looking at the report from the coaches, we see that nearly half the team beat the AVERAGE for their group at the NFL combine. That's great. Some people say that's ridiculous, that there's no way we could have that many athletes of that caliber. I say we damn well BETTER have that many athletes of that caliber. Don't forget, these NFL Combine numbers aren't numbers for all the players currently IN the NFL...they're numbers for the college players hoping to make it INTO the NFL. That means you have your elite 1st round pick guys...and you have guys who may ultimately get signed to a practice squad, and wash out after a couple of years. Hell, I could have gone to the combine. There's a wide range of athleticism there. So, to have guys on our team beat the AVERAGE isn't only understandable, it's expected.
Look, what we should take from this is that we have a number of very good athletes on the team this year. When they take the field, they are going to be capable of performing at a level we as fans haven't seen in a while. That should excite us. They're not going to get out on the field and push weight. They aren't going to long-jump. But, they're going to be able to use their superior athleticism to play the greatest sport ever conceived - football.
A 40-yard dash will rarely come into play on a saturday...and one by an OLB is even less likely. If an OLB is running a 40-yard dash on gameday, something has gone horribly wrong (Or, he's chasing a scrambling QB from sideline to sideline). Still, how nice will it be to see an OLB who can run down a backside play for a loss? Oh man, that'll be sweet.
Go Dawgs.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
No News is....No News.
I haven't posted in a couple of weeks...and while some in the readership out there would say that makes me irrelevant, I would argue that my lack of posting anything shows just how relevant I am. You see, for the past couple of weeks, NOTHING HAS HAPPENED concerning my view of Georgia Football.
True, we picked up commitments from two recruits.
But, recruit "commitments" are like "going steady." There's no real commitment. Basically, it's an agreement to make a commitment on a future date. Just like "going steady" is open-ended until a marital engagement, a commitment to a football team can easily be rescinded by either party. The recruit can suddenly decide to jump ship, or the school can quickly pull a scholarship offer. The only difference is, unlike the potential bride, both the school and the kid know the date on which their "coupling" will or will NOT become official (in most cases).
Also, I know little about the two players who have committed recently, other than the facts that Scott-Wesley appears to have a boat load of speed, and size (but he's still a 3-star recruit - obviously missing SOMETHING that would make folks think he'll make an impact in 2011) and the fact that Sterling Bailey has size and strength (and is still a 3-star recruit - obviously missing SOMETHING that would make folks think he'll make an impact in 2011). Now, neither of these players have entered their senior season in high school. Some would think that isn't important. Let me tell you the difference a year can make.
In my junior year of high school, I was buried on a depth chart at center behind another junior who had been starting since the year before. Also, I was told that in "emergency situations" (should Stephen get hurt) the line would be adjusted, and one of the guards would be starting at center. Simply put, I was not ready for prime time.
A year later, I was the starting center, started all 12 games for my team which went 10-0 and won our region (Region 4 AAAA - the highest classification at the time) before dropping the 2nd game of the playoffs. I was named to all-county and all-region teams, and was an all-state honorable mention. I graded out highest on the offensive line most weeks of that season (beating the guy who once started in front of me). Simply put, that one year can mean a whole heck of a lot.
Now, it could be that Todd Grantham was in Bailey's ear for a reason. Maybe he sees the upside in this kid that most won't recognize until this fall. Perhaps Richt and Co know that Scott-Wesley simply has to work on route running, and he'll be a big-time player. Perhaps our coaches have evaluated these guys as 4 star players, and the recruiting services will catch up later. I have no idea. But, at any rate, I don't feel I have any real need to be jumping for joy about these new commitments. So, I have held my fingers from the keyboard.
Or, I suppose I could be joining in this whole "hot seat" debate that seems so popular right now. Well, it's popular because people don't have much to write about or talk about, and when that's true, people will talk and write about the most incendiary topics possible. As a result, more conversation is created, and the people get what they want most - a forum to argue and debate over topics that have nothing to do with reality. The simple fact of the matter is, the "hot seat" does not exist. A guy has a job, or he doesn't. If his performance falls to a point where the University feels he's no longer useful, he's gone. In essence, every coach is on the "hot seat" every year. You can bank up good will, but if you have a catastrophic season, you're in just as much danger of being fired as anyone else. If the Gators go 2-10 this season, do you think the FL brass will stick by Urban Meyer and say, "This guy is OUR guy forever"? No, they won't. They'll say, "you should focus on your health. Take some time off - like, forever." Now, that won't happen because Florida won't go 2-10 this season. But hey, for the purpose of writing, I can live by conjecture just as much as anyone else can.
Also, it takes more than fan disapproval to get a coach fired. Sorry to all the blog readers and message board writers out there, but the fact is, your disapproval doesn't carry that much weight. To put it simply, the Board Of Regents "Just ain't that into you." Now, BIG DONORS, on the other hand, carry some weight. BUT, they don't carry an enormous amount. The fact is, the school gets much more money from TV contracts, endorsement deals, BCS games, etc, than they do from even the most major of major donors. What delivers THOSE dollars? Winning games and having a championship-caliber program. Richt delivered that through the first half of this decade, and still delivered wins into the second half. He ended the decade poorly. In the new decade, he's starting fresh. If he delivers again, the school will be rewarded for NOT listening to message board maniacs who think Richt should be replaced with someone a little more "peppy."
And then, there's the great Richard Samuel debate. Fans are patting their backs for their correct assumption that Samuel would make a better linebacker than a running back. Many fans now believe themselves to be smarter than the UGA coaching staff, because they were calling for that move a year ago. It's funny...but I remember people LIKING Samuel's "bowl you over" style when he first started running the ball. The problem was, he didn't bowl people over and keep going...he bowled himself into a tackle. He lacked good field vision, and that'll kill any running back's career. Still, who didn't go crazy when he broke that 80-yard run? And, which of the fans out there knows what was going on within the walls of Butts-Mehre? It's quite possible that Jancek never really took to Samuel. If that's the case, then you can see why the kid wouldn't have been moved to LB earlier. It's possible that Jancek was simply a bad hire, and that he couldn't recognize potential. Given the development of recent LBs, I'd give that a shot as being the truth. Some will say, "Richt didn't listen to the kid's highschool coach, who said he should be on defense."
Well, my high-school coach once said I had no business being on a football field "anywhere." Not "in the SEC" not "at UGA" not even "at this high-school" He said, I didn't belong on a football field "anywhere." There are more than a few plaques on my wall that would disagree. In my case, my coach was wrong. In Samuel's case, his coach appears to have been right. But, you take each kid and you look at his skills, and you try to use him as best as you can for your team. Unfortunately, Samuel didn't develop at RB. Perhaps he will at LB.
Sean Jones didn't develop at QB, but was one hell of a safety. Bruce Thornton (whom I had the luxury of playing with at two schools- LHS and UGA) wasn't an SEC tailback, but he became an NFL Cornerback. Terrence Edwards didn't toss many passes at UGA, but he sure did catch a few. All three of these guys (and quite a few more) were brought in at one position (anyone remember Fullback David Pollack getting carries at UGA?) but excelled at another (anyone remember Defensive End David Pollack being UGA's 2nd Three-Time All-American?). Hopefully the same will ring true for Richard Samuel. Either way, it wasn't the clamoring of fans that created the opportunity Richard now has. It was a perfect storm of factors. King and Ealy developed better than Samuel, so he was buried under their performances. Jancek was removed and Grantham brought in. Grantham's aggressive style suits Samuel's attitude. Learning a new position would give Samuel the perfect opportunity to redshirt and be able to truly COMPETE at a position as opposed to being surpassed. These factors made the change very easy, and hopefully, very fortunate.
Still, ALL of this...EVERY STORYLINE, is conjecture. Will the recruits eventually sign and improve the team? Does a hotseat for Mark Richt exist? Will Samuel be a great Linebacker? None of it is based on any kind of on-the-field performance that has taken place. The recruits haven't played a down of their senior year. The Dawgs haven't begun "the season that could make or break Mark Richt" (which is stupid anyway. It can't make him...he's already "made"...it could only break him, and I don't think it could do that either). Samuel hasn't made a single tackle against an opposing team (I think...I dunno...has he been on kickoff - oh wait, did we tackle on kickoffs under Fabris?). So, we're all simply left to sit here and imagine what COULD be.
Do yourself a favor. Talk about good UGA football memories, or even bad ones. Talk about the spring game, whatever. But stop trying to imagine what might possibly maybe happen if certain things that could happen do happen and go down the way they might be able to maybe go down. It's going to drive you nuts.
Go Dawgs.
True, we picked up commitments from two recruits.
But, recruit "commitments" are like "going steady." There's no real commitment. Basically, it's an agreement to make a commitment on a future date. Just like "going steady" is open-ended until a marital engagement, a commitment to a football team can easily be rescinded by either party. The recruit can suddenly decide to jump ship, or the school can quickly pull a scholarship offer. The only difference is, unlike the potential bride, both the school and the kid know the date on which their "coupling" will or will NOT become official (in most cases).
Also, I know little about the two players who have committed recently, other than the facts that Scott-Wesley appears to have a boat load of speed, and size (but he's still a 3-star recruit - obviously missing SOMETHING that would make folks think he'll make an impact in 2011) and the fact that Sterling Bailey has size and strength (and is still a 3-star recruit - obviously missing SOMETHING that would make folks think he'll make an impact in 2011). Now, neither of these players have entered their senior season in high school. Some would think that isn't important. Let me tell you the difference a year can make.
In my junior year of high school, I was buried on a depth chart at center behind another junior who had been starting since the year before. Also, I was told that in "emergency situations" (should Stephen get hurt) the line would be adjusted, and one of the guards would be starting at center. Simply put, I was not ready for prime time.
A year later, I was the starting center, started all 12 games for my team which went 10-0 and won our region (Region 4 AAAA - the highest classification at the time) before dropping the 2nd game of the playoffs. I was named to all-county and all-region teams, and was an all-state honorable mention. I graded out highest on the offensive line most weeks of that season (beating the guy who once started in front of me). Simply put, that one year can mean a whole heck of a lot.
Now, it could be that Todd Grantham was in Bailey's ear for a reason. Maybe he sees the upside in this kid that most won't recognize until this fall. Perhaps Richt and Co know that Scott-Wesley simply has to work on route running, and he'll be a big-time player. Perhaps our coaches have evaluated these guys as 4 star players, and the recruiting services will catch up later. I have no idea. But, at any rate, I don't feel I have any real need to be jumping for joy about these new commitments. So, I have held my fingers from the keyboard.
Or, I suppose I could be joining in this whole "hot seat" debate that seems so popular right now. Well, it's popular because people don't have much to write about or talk about, and when that's true, people will talk and write about the most incendiary topics possible. As a result, more conversation is created, and the people get what they want most - a forum to argue and debate over topics that have nothing to do with reality. The simple fact of the matter is, the "hot seat" does not exist. A guy has a job, or he doesn't. If his performance falls to a point where the University feels he's no longer useful, he's gone. In essence, every coach is on the "hot seat" every year. You can bank up good will, but if you have a catastrophic season, you're in just as much danger of being fired as anyone else. If the Gators go 2-10 this season, do you think the FL brass will stick by Urban Meyer and say, "This guy is OUR guy forever"? No, they won't. They'll say, "you should focus on your health. Take some time off - like, forever." Now, that won't happen because Florida won't go 2-10 this season. But hey, for the purpose of writing, I can live by conjecture just as much as anyone else can.
Also, it takes more than fan disapproval to get a coach fired. Sorry to all the blog readers and message board writers out there, but the fact is, your disapproval doesn't carry that much weight. To put it simply, the Board Of Regents "Just ain't that into you." Now, BIG DONORS, on the other hand, carry some weight. BUT, they don't carry an enormous amount. The fact is, the school gets much more money from TV contracts, endorsement deals, BCS games, etc, than they do from even the most major of major donors. What delivers THOSE dollars? Winning games and having a championship-caliber program. Richt delivered that through the first half of this decade, and still delivered wins into the second half. He ended the decade poorly. In the new decade, he's starting fresh. If he delivers again, the school will be rewarded for NOT listening to message board maniacs who think Richt should be replaced with someone a little more "peppy."
And then, there's the great Richard Samuel debate. Fans are patting their backs for their correct assumption that Samuel would make a better linebacker than a running back. Many fans now believe themselves to be smarter than the UGA coaching staff, because they were calling for that move a year ago. It's funny...but I remember people LIKING Samuel's "bowl you over" style when he first started running the ball. The problem was, he didn't bowl people over and keep going...he bowled himself into a tackle. He lacked good field vision, and that'll kill any running back's career. Still, who didn't go crazy when he broke that 80-yard run? And, which of the fans out there knows what was going on within the walls of Butts-Mehre? It's quite possible that Jancek never really took to Samuel. If that's the case, then you can see why the kid wouldn't have been moved to LB earlier. It's possible that Jancek was simply a bad hire, and that he couldn't recognize potential. Given the development of recent LBs, I'd give that a shot as being the truth. Some will say, "Richt didn't listen to the kid's highschool coach, who said he should be on defense."
Well, my high-school coach once said I had no business being on a football field "anywhere." Not "in the SEC" not "at UGA" not even "at this high-school" He said, I didn't belong on a football field "anywhere." There are more than a few plaques on my wall that would disagree. In my case, my coach was wrong. In Samuel's case, his coach appears to have been right. But, you take each kid and you look at his skills, and you try to use him as best as you can for your team. Unfortunately, Samuel didn't develop at RB. Perhaps he will at LB.
Sean Jones didn't develop at QB, but was one hell of a safety. Bruce Thornton (whom I had the luxury of playing with at two schools- LHS and UGA) wasn't an SEC tailback, but he became an NFL Cornerback. Terrence Edwards didn't toss many passes at UGA, but he sure did catch a few. All three of these guys (and quite a few more) were brought in at one position (anyone remember Fullback David Pollack getting carries at UGA?) but excelled at another (anyone remember Defensive End David Pollack being UGA's 2nd Three-Time All-American?). Hopefully the same will ring true for Richard Samuel. Either way, it wasn't the clamoring of fans that created the opportunity Richard now has. It was a perfect storm of factors. King and Ealy developed better than Samuel, so he was buried under their performances. Jancek was removed and Grantham brought in. Grantham's aggressive style suits Samuel's attitude. Learning a new position would give Samuel the perfect opportunity to redshirt and be able to truly COMPETE at a position as opposed to being surpassed. These factors made the change very easy, and hopefully, very fortunate.
Still, ALL of this...EVERY STORYLINE, is conjecture. Will the recruits eventually sign and improve the team? Does a hotseat for Mark Richt exist? Will Samuel be a great Linebacker? None of it is based on any kind of on-the-field performance that has taken place. The recruits haven't played a down of their senior year. The Dawgs haven't begun "the season that could make or break Mark Richt" (which is stupid anyway. It can't make him...he's already "made"...it could only break him, and I don't think it could do that either). Samuel hasn't made a single tackle against an opposing team (I think...I dunno...has he been on kickoff - oh wait, did we tackle on kickoffs under Fabris?). So, we're all simply left to sit here and imagine what COULD be.
Do yourself a favor. Talk about good UGA football memories, or even bad ones. Talk about the spring game, whatever. But stop trying to imagine what might possibly maybe happen if certain things that could happen do happen and go down the way they might be able to maybe go down. It's going to drive you nuts.
Go Dawgs.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Christian LeMay, and the future of UGA QBs
The announcement has just been made, amid the familiar strains of Ray Charles' "Georgia." Christian LeMay is going to be a Georgia Bulldog. That is, unless Richt or Bobo are gone after 2010. I don't see Richt being gone...and unless Bobo's offense falls completely off the map, I don't see him being fired either. He's going into a season with a Freshman quarterback. Even minimal improvement will solidify his job for at least one season.
Still, what does the rest of the quarterback situation look like? Logan Gray is (at the moment) still on the team. LeMay's announcement shouldn't really do anything to affect Gray's decision. Christian wants to come in and redshirt, he has said so on multiple occasions. So, the earliest he'd see the field is the fall of 2012. By then, Gray will have moved on, one way or another. So, what we have is one redshirt freshman, one redshirt Junior and three true freshmen (1 SC, 2 WO) on the depth chart. That's five guys in line before LeMay hits the locker room in January of 2011.
So what will happen? Well, if Gray can actually contribute as a receiver, I'd say he should move over there and start getting some reps. He should be running routes this summer as a receiver if he decides to stay at UGA. If he decides to go, the one thing we truly lose is his years in the system. While many fans don't think he's a good option as a starting quarterback, he does have the most true knowledge of what's going on back there. Watching him at G-Day, I certainly didn't think he was as awful as his play last season made him out to be. It appeared that he could serve as a functional backup, should Murray go down. Still, having him as a full-time QB seems like a waste to me.
I don't like the idea of Gray doing mop-up duty. The reason I don't like it, is I'd love for whichever of the three true freshmen picks up the offense best in camp to get reps this fall. UGA has found itself in a low-experience situation at QB too many times in recent years. Part of that is due to the dwindling points scored, and increasing points surrendered by the team. In essence, we haven't been good enough to get the backups much experience. There's no reason for UGA to face that in the future.
As it stands, UGA enters 2010 with 5 quarterbacks, four of whom are freshmen.
Four quarterbacks who are the same year. Now, that's a very crowded backfield. But, as we've seen over the years, it's unlikely that all of these players will stay in the system. As a former walk-on, let me tell you...it's very trying to go out and give all you can only to know that on Saturday, you're not likely to be getting into a game. What's more than that, is that after a while, you stop getting quality reps and are working all the opponent's plays. That doesn't help your development in the system.
Most likely, the two invited walk-ons who are coming in this fall will be gone before LeMay hits campus in 2011. Now, one may surprise, but it's doubtful that both will. It wouldn't shock me to see Richt hang a scholarship on one of those guys after fall camp. There's certainly one available. However, the decision to invite those boys to camp was likely to find two guys who could split scout-team reps while Murray, Gray and Mason work with the 1st team. The shocker could come when one of the walk-ons turns out to be a better fit than Mason, and Mason ends up running the scouts.
Still, when LeMay arrives in 2011, possibly alongside one of four other highly-touted recruits, two within the Georgia borders, the QB backfield will be quite crowded indeed. Whether Gray is still a QB at that point, there will be at least 5 and possibly six quarterbacks within a football-year of one another. YIKES! To give a quick little breakdown, it looks something like this:
2010 - 1 JR (bench), 4 Freshmen (1RS, 3 Tr)
2011 - 1 SR (bench), 1 RSSoph, 5 Fresh (3 RS, 2 True - Lemay+1)
2012 - 1 RSJR, 3 RSSoph, 2 RSFresh + I'd guess we still sign a QB to prevent holes.
2013 - 1 RSSR, 3 RSJR, 2 RSSoph, 2 Fresh (either RS or True or a combo)
That's a ton of QBs. If Gray moves to Wideout, we'll be loaded with Freshmen this year, but at least one of the incoming guys will get game experience, and no redshirt. The future would look more like this:
2010 - 4 Freshmen (1RS, 3 True)
2011 - 2 Soph (1RS, 1True), 4 Fresh (2 RS, 2 True - LeMay+1)
2012 - 2 Jun (1+1), 2 RSSoph, 3 Fresh (2 RS, 1 True)
2013 - 2 Sen (1+1), 2 RSJun, 2 RSSoph, 2 Fresh (1RS, 1 True)
Now, you see as well as I do that the only real difference other than Logan Gray is that by 2013, we have 2 of every class at QB. What I like about this variation is that it creates a measure of consistency. By 2014, LeMay will be a Redshirt Junior and would be fully ready to take the reigns, assuming he hadn't beaten out Murray along the way. Now, do I believe we'll be able to keep so many quarterbacks in the fold? No.
I think that along the way, at least one of this season's invited walk-ons will disappear. These guys will be pushing themselves, but as a walk-on, you arrive behind the eight ball. They are automatically 3rd-at-best on the depth chart, and will have to push hard to beat Hutson Mason for that spot. If one does, he will know that he holds it for a few months...until LeMay arrives in January of 2011 (he's said he's enrolling early).
If Gray moves to WR, then the better of the two walk-ons will have a roster spot through the 2011 season, as LeMay has also said he plans to Redshirt. That is, of course, unless another highly-touted QB comes in and pushes for the third-in-line spot. Then of course, there's always the possibility of a kid who believes he's the 2nd coming getting fed up with the competition, and moving on elsewhere. I don't think that will be the case with LeMay, but if another QB comes in with him, the 2nd one may bolt. Hutson Mason could vanish if he were to get beat-out by a walk-on this fall, or if he felt that he'd never take over for Murray due to LeMay's abilities.
There are so many possibilities for the future of the QB position at UGA, but it all starts with Murray staying healthy this season (assuming he stays ahead of Gray, assuming that Gray stays at QB, and at UGA).
But, it certainly doesn't appear that we'll be running into this "no QBs with experience" situation again anytime soon.
...
Did I write that same line a few years ago? God, I hope not.
Go Dawgs!
Still, what does the rest of the quarterback situation look like? Logan Gray is (at the moment) still on the team. LeMay's announcement shouldn't really do anything to affect Gray's decision. Christian wants to come in and redshirt, he has said so on multiple occasions. So, the earliest he'd see the field is the fall of 2012. By then, Gray will have moved on, one way or another. So, what we have is one redshirt freshman, one redshirt Junior and three true freshmen (1 SC, 2 WO) on the depth chart. That's five guys in line before LeMay hits the locker room in January of 2011.
So what will happen? Well, if Gray can actually contribute as a receiver, I'd say he should move over there and start getting some reps. He should be running routes this summer as a receiver if he decides to stay at UGA. If he decides to go, the one thing we truly lose is his years in the system. While many fans don't think he's a good option as a starting quarterback, he does have the most true knowledge of what's going on back there. Watching him at G-Day, I certainly didn't think he was as awful as his play last season made him out to be. It appeared that he could serve as a functional backup, should Murray go down. Still, having him as a full-time QB seems like a waste to me.
I don't like the idea of Gray doing mop-up duty. The reason I don't like it, is I'd love for whichever of the three true freshmen picks up the offense best in camp to get reps this fall. UGA has found itself in a low-experience situation at QB too many times in recent years. Part of that is due to the dwindling points scored, and increasing points surrendered by the team. In essence, we haven't been good enough to get the backups much experience. There's no reason for UGA to face that in the future.
As it stands, UGA enters 2010 with 5 quarterbacks, four of whom are freshmen.
Four quarterbacks who are the same year. Now, that's a very crowded backfield. But, as we've seen over the years, it's unlikely that all of these players will stay in the system. As a former walk-on, let me tell you...it's very trying to go out and give all you can only to know that on Saturday, you're not likely to be getting into a game. What's more than that, is that after a while, you stop getting quality reps and are working all the opponent's plays. That doesn't help your development in the system.
Most likely, the two invited walk-ons who are coming in this fall will be gone before LeMay hits campus in 2011. Now, one may surprise, but it's doubtful that both will. It wouldn't shock me to see Richt hang a scholarship on one of those guys after fall camp. There's certainly one available. However, the decision to invite those boys to camp was likely to find two guys who could split scout-team reps while Murray, Gray and Mason work with the 1st team. The shocker could come when one of the walk-ons turns out to be a better fit than Mason, and Mason ends up running the scouts.
Still, when LeMay arrives in 2011, possibly alongside one of four other highly-touted recruits, two within the Georgia borders, the QB backfield will be quite crowded indeed. Whether Gray is still a QB at that point, there will be at least 5 and possibly six quarterbacks within a football-year of one another. YIKES! To give a quick little breakdown, it looks something like this:
2010 - 1 JR (bench), 4 Freshmen (1RS, 3 Tr)
2011 - 1 SR (bench), 1 RSSoph, 5 Fresh (3 RS, 2 True - Lemay+1)
2012 - 1 RSJR, 3 RSSoph, 2 RSFresh + I'd guess we still sign a QB to prevent holes.
2013 - 1 RSSR, 3 RSJR, 2 RSSoph, 2 Fresh (either RS or True or a combo)
That's a ton of QBs. If Gray moves to Wideout, we'll be loaded with Freshmen this year, but at least one of the incoming guys will get game experience, and no redshirt. The future would look more like this:
2010 - 4 Freshmen (1RS, 3 True)
2011 - 2 Soph (1RS, 1True), 4 Fresh (2 RS, 2 True - LeMay+1)
2012 - 2 Jun (1+1), 2 RSSoph, 3 Fresh (2 RS, 1 True)
2013 - 2 Sen (1+1), 2 RSJun, 2 RSSoph, 2 Fresh (1RS, 1 True)
Now, you see as well as I do that the only real difference other than Logan Gray is that by 2013, we have 2 of every class at QB. What I like about this variation is that it creates a measure of consistency. By 2014, LeMay will be a Redshirt Junior and would be fully ready to take the reigns, assuming he hadn't beaten out Murray along the way. Now, do I believe we'll be able to keep so many quarterbacks in the fold? No.
I think that along the way, at least one of this season's invited walk-ons will disappear. These guys will be pushing themselves, but as a walk-on, you arrive behind the eight ball. They are automatically 3rd-at-best on the depth chart, and will have to push hard to beat Hutson Mason for that spot. If one does, he will know that he holds it for a few months...until LeMay arrives in January of 2011 (he's said he's enrolling early).
If Gray moves to WR, then the better of the two walk-ons will have a roster spot through the 2011 season, as LeMay has also said he plans to Redshirt. That is, of course, unless another highly-touted QB comes in and pushes for the third-in-line spot. Then of course, there's always the possibility of a kid who believes he's the 2nd coming getting fed up with the competition, and moving on elsewhere. I don't think that will be the case with LeMay, but if another QB comes in with him, the 2nd one may bolt. Hutson Mason could vanish if he were to get beat-out by a walk-on this fall, or if he felt that he'd never take over for Murray due to LeMay's abilities.
There are so many possibilities for the future of the QB position at UGA, but it all starts with Murray staying healthy this season (assuming he stays ahead of Gray, assuming that Gray stays at QB, and at UGA).
But, it certainly doesn't appear that we'll be running into this "no QBs with experience" situation again anytime soon.
...
Did I write that same line a few years ago? God, I hope not.
Go Dawgs!
The Thing...
I'm going to go ahead and tell you - this one is lengthy. Grab a coke and have a read.
So, after a thoroughly exhausting combing through the statistics of each position on the offense and defense, I came up with no solid statistical evidence that any one position is the one that leads the Dawgs to championships. The Defensive Ends came the closest, and that makes sense in my mind (maybe because I WAS a DE) due to the need for pressure and containment, which is caused by the DEs in a 4-3 defense. Moving forward, that focus will shift more to the OLBs. Still, there HAS to be some common thread, right - some truly definable aspect of UGA's title teams that can show us how we got to where we were, and how to get back?
Considering that, I went through the NCAA statbook on offensive and defensive production by UGA over the entire Mark Richt era. That one was a bit of a pain in the tukkus (no seriously, Prep H, please!), but I did it. I was curious as to how UGA stacks up against the national competition. What I found was very surprising to me. The statistical results are as follows:
(Have I ever mentioned how much I hate creating tables? If not, I just did.)
Ok, so looking back over the years of Richt's offense at UGA I notice a few things. First off....going by the rankings, even in our best years, we haven't been great. The Dawgs haven't posted a top-ten offensive performance in ANY category in Richt's nine years. Now, surely we can attribute some of that to teams like Hawaii whose bread and butter is putting up HUGE numbers against ridiculously bad competition. Still, I have to think that if we look at the top ten offenses over those years, we're bound to find an Alabama, a Florida or an LSU in there somewhere. Well, In Total Offense, Florida made the top ten twice...in 01 and in 09. But, no other team in the SEC made the top ten in Total offense from 2001-2009. That makes me feel a bit better. But, I know what you're thinking....Total Offense is a measure of yardage, and what matters is the scoreboard! UGA's scoring rank has only been higher than 30 ONCE in Richt's nine years. How does THAT compare?
Well, it certainly doesn't compare favorably to Florida whose scoring average has only been ranked out of the top 20 four times in the nine years, and they've been in the top ten in four other years. Our 2002 ranking of 14 was good for best in the conference, and our 2005 title season brought us the second-best scoring in the SEC, our 42nd rank to AU's 30th. But then we look at the 2003 season, in which five SEC teams finished ahead of us in scoring, three in our own division, yet we were in the SEC title game.
The 2007 season, which people like to point to and say "UGA had as good of a shot as anyone that year" tells a different tale statistically. Our offensive scoring production was the same as Southern Cal's, ranked for 34th in the nation (still would have loved to have seen a UGA-USC Rose Bowl or Sugar Bowl), but we were only fifth best in the conference in scoring.
To sum it up, looking at our offense compared to the rest of our conference, in the two years where we won titles, we were better than the rest of field, not just in wins/losses but on the scoreboard as well. In the other seven seasons, we've been very middle-of-the-road.
Still, as things have gone horribly for Georgia over the past few seasons, it has been the DEFENSE that has drawn the fire of the fanship as well as the blogosphere. Ultimately, we got rid of the defensive coaching staff. And WHY? Well...let me show you THOSE statistics.
So, there you see the tale of why the defense was the first to go. From 2002-2007, UGA finished in the top 20 nationally in a majority of its defensive statistical categories every year. Even in the 2006 season, what a rocky one that was, UGA was able to post 2 top tens and two more top 20's. But, a definite trend downward can be seen on the defense. The only area of defensive improvement from the 2007-2009 period came in 2008 when we saw a 23 yard/game improvement in pass yardage surrendered. However, it all came crashing down in 2009.
I don't think anyone will argue that in the earlier years of Richt's tenure, our defense was really keeping us in games, and making them winnable. The statistics certainly don't deny that fact. As of late, UGA has become a bit more of a shoot-out team, though all too often, we've been shooting blanks. You simply can't have a team whose offensive scoring production begins to suffer also have its wheels fall off on defense. Well, not if you want to win games, and championships.
So, to me at least, it's growing clearer and clearer that the old addage holds true - Defense wins championships. In the past nine years, the BCS title has gone to a team with lower than a top 10 scoring defense only once, the oddity season of 2007. This table breaks it down:
* - In 2004, Auburn had the nation's top scoring defense, went undefeated, and was held out of the BCS title game. The teams that played in that title game, USC and OU both had the best defenses in their conference and ranked #3 and #11 respectively.
In 2007, LSU beat the nation's best scoring defense in the BCS title game when the 17th ranked (scoring D) Tigers defeated the top-ranked (Scoring D) Ohio State Buckeyes.
Of course, now I guess it's only fair to go back and look at the same BCS title winners and see what their scoring average ranked nationally. Here ya go:
So, we see that the National Champ has come from the national top ten in scoring offense only four times in the past nine years. But, in all but one year, that champion has been from within the top 25. Even in 2004, all three teams who could lay any kind of claim on rights to be in the title game, USC (6), OU (14) and AU (18) were within that top 25. Still, the offensive side of the ball is obviously the area where elite performance is not as necessary to win a title.
Looking back in our first table, now, we see that in Richt's nine years at UGA, his teams have been inside that magical top-25 of scoring only once. Not surprisingly, that was his best team, the 13-1 2002 SEC Champions. If not for a late interception by a Florida CB, UGA may very well have been able to hoist the Crystal Football that season. Instead, we were on the outside looking in. We have not come close to being that good offensively again. Yes, we've had a higher average point total...but the game has changed in the last nine years. What was good enough for 22nd in 2002 wouldn't have made the top 35 in 2007.
We'll have to improve on offense - a lot. But, I don't see that being a huge problem. Our offensive line is the strongest it's been in three years. Our running back position is as strong as ever. Some would say that's impossible, given that Knowshon is no longer in the backfield...but 2009's backs did better than Knowshon did. The big fall-off for UGA last season was in the passing game, where Joe Cox was at times brilliant, but far more often middling-to-bad. I doubt Murray will put up numbers like Stafford did in 2008, but then again, Greene's arm was good enough for a 24 ranking nationally in his RSFreshman season. Who's to say Murray can't do that, too? He certainly has the receivers, if they stay healthy. Those who are looking for UGA to improve only marginally this year should definitely ready themselves for a surprise. We're gonna be much better.
For UGA since Richt started, the one consistent factor in all of its division titles and championship years has simply been Mark Richt. He was involved in the quarterback room early in his career, and we had success. He hired a firey, aggressive DC early in his career, and we had success. When he got away from those two things, we trended downward. Now, in 2010, his tenth season at UGA, Coach Richt is returning to the form he had in 2001. He has become much more no-nonsense, as shown by his recent removal of trouble-making players. He has become non-placating, as shown by his placement of Murray at the top of the depth chart. He is back in the meeting rooms, and he has brought in a top-shelf, aggressive defensive coordinator.
Expect UGA to be much improved, as Mark Richt is back...and Mark Richt is the thing.
Go Dawgs.
So, after a thoroughly exhausting combing through the statistics of each position on the offense and defense, I came up with no solid statistical evidence that any one position is the one that leads the Dawgs to championships. The Defensive Ends came the closest, and that makes sense in my mind (maybe because I WAS a DE) due to the need for pressure and containment, which is caused by the DEs in a 4-3 defense. Moving forward, that focus will shift more to the OLBs. Still, there HAS to be some common thread, right - some truly definable aspect of UGA's title teams that can show us how we got to where we were, and how to get back?
Considering that, I went through the NCAA statbook on offensive and defensive production by UGA over the entire Mark Richt era. That one was a bit of a pain in the tukkus (no seriously, Prep H, please!), but I did it. I was curious as to how UGA stacks up against the national competition. What I found was very surprising to me. The statistical results are as follows:
| YEAR | RYPG | Rnk | PYPG | Rnk | TYPG | Rnk | SCOR | Rnk | TNVR | Rnk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 162.45 | 50 | 270.4 | 24 | 432.82 | 21 | 28.64 | 45 | 20 | 32 |
| 2002 | 139.57 | 67 | 245.4 | 39 | 384.93 | 49 | 32.14 | 22 | 23 | 35 |
| 2003 | 134.93 | 74 | 245.4 | 37 | 380.29 | 58 | 26.5 | 64 | 18 | 15 |
| 2004 | 156.83 | 57 | 247.7 | 30 | 404.5 | 31 | 27.92 | 45 | 19 | 35 |
| 2005 | 162.15 | 43 | 229 | 49 | 391.15 | 49 | 29.54 | 42 | 18 | 19 |
| 2006 | 127.38 | 71 | 184.4 | 79 | 311.77 | 90 | 25.15 | 53 | 31 | 107 |
| 2007 | 177.23 | 37 | 198.4 | 83 | 375.62 | 74 | 32.62 | 34 | 17 | 14 |
| 2008 | 148.31 | 56 | 277.69 | 16 | 426 | 22 | 31.46 | 33 | 19 | 27 |
| 2009 | 161 | 47 | 201.15 | 80 | 362.15 | 75 | 28.92 | 51 | 28 | 99 |
(Have I ever mentioned how much I hate creating tables? If not, I just did.)
Ok, so looking back over the years of Richt's offense at UGA I notice a few things. First off....going by the rankings, even in our best years, we haven't been great. The Dawgs haven't posted a top-ten offensive performance in ANY category in Richt's nine years. Now, surely we can attribute some of that to teams like Hawaii whose bread and butter is putting up HUGE numbers against ridiculously bad competition. Still, I have to think that if we look at the top ten offenses over those years, we're bound to find an Alabama, a Florida or an LSU in there somewhere. Well, In Total Offense, Florida made the top ten twice...in 01 and in 09. But, no other team in the SEC made the top ten in Total offense from 2001-2009. That makes me feel a bit better. But, I know what you're thinking....Total Offense is a measure of yardage, and what matters is the scoreboard! UGA's scoring rank has only been higher than 30 ONCE in Richt's nine years. How does THAT compare?
Well, it certainly doesn't compare favorably to Florida whose scoring average has only been ranked out of the top 20 four times in the nine years, and they've been in the top ten in four other years. Our 2002 ranking of 14 was good for best in the conference, and our 2005 title season brought us the second-best scoring in the SEC, our 42nd rank to AU's 30th. But then we look at the 2003 season, in which five SEC teams finished ahead of us in scoring, three in our own division, yet we were in the SEC title game.
The 2007 season, which people like to point to and say "UGA had as good of a shot as anyone that year" tells a different tale statistically. Our offensive scoring production was the same as Southern Cal's, ranked for 34th in the nation (still would have loved to have seen a UGA-USC Rose Bowl or Sugar Bowl), but we were only fifth best in the conference in scoring.
To sum it up, looking at our offense compared to the rest of our conference, in the two years where we won titles, we were better than the rest of field, not just in wins/losses but on the scoreboard as well. In the other seven seasons, we've been very middle-of-the-road.
Still, as things have gone horribly for Georgia over the past few seasons, it has been the DEFENSE that has drawn the fire of the fanship as well as the blogosphere. Ultimately, we got rid of the defensive coaching staff. And WHY? Well...let me show you THOSE statistics.
| YEAR | RYPG | Rnk | PYPG | Rnk | TYPG | Rnk | SCOR | Rnk | TNVR | Rnk | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 108.8 | 15 | 252.64 | 96 | 361.45 | 49 | 18.9 | 17 | 21 | 67 | |
| 2002 | 114 | 19 | 189.5 | 31 | 303.5 | 15 | 15.1 | 4 | 31 | 28 | |
| 2003 | 102.4 | 13 | 174.5 | 6 | 276.86 | 4 | 14.5 | 3 | 29 | 21 | |
| 2004 | 106.9 | 15 | 182 | 16 | 288.92 | 8 | 16.5 | 9 | 17 | 92 | |
| 2005 | 143.8 | 52 | 169.62 | 7 | 313.46 | 18 | 16.4 | 8 | 29 | 14 | |
| 2006 | 108.2 | 27 | 150 | 5 | 258.23 | 8 | 17.6 | 20 | 30 | 13 | |
| 2007 | 109.9 | 16 | 213.31 | 36 | 323.23 | 14 | 20.2 | 18 | 26 | 39 | |
| 2008 | 122.31 | 27 | 189.69 | 32 | 312 | 22 | 24.54 | 59 | 16 | 104 | |
| 2009 | 126.15 | 36 | 213.23 | 51 | 339.38 | 38 | 25.92 | 64 | 12 | 118 |
So, there you see the tale of why the defense was the first to go. From 2002-2007, UGA finished in the top 20 nationally in a majority of its defensive statistical categories every year. Even in the 2006 season, what a rocky one that was, UGA was able to post 2 top tens and two more top 20's. But, a definite trend downward can be seen on the defense. The only area of defensive improvement from the 2007-2009 period came in 2008 when we saw a 23 yard/game improvement in pass yardage surrendered. However, it all came crashing down in 2009.
I don't think anyone will argue that in the earlier years of Richt's tenure, our defense was really keeping us in games, and making them winnable. The statistics certainly don't deny that fact. As of late, UGA has become a bit more of a shoot-out team, though all too often, we've been shooting blanks. You simply can't have a team whose offensive scoring production begins to suffer also have its wheels fall off on defense. Well, not if you want to win games, and championships.
So, to me at least, it's growing clearer and clearer that the old addage holds true - Defense wins championships. In the past nine years, the BCS title has gone to a team with lower than a top 10 scoring defense only once, the oddity season of 2007. This table breaks it down:
| YEAR | BCSWNR | DEFRNK |
|---|---|---|
| 2001 | MIA | 1 |
| 2002 | OHST | 2 |
| 2003 | LSU | 1 |
| 2004* | USC | 3 |
| 2005 | TEX | 8 |
| 2006 | FL | 6 |
| 2007 | LSU | 17 |
| 2008 | FL | 4 |
| 2009 | AL | 2 |
* - In 2004, Auburn had the nation's top scoring defense, went undefeated, and was held out of the BCS title game. The teams that played in that title game, USC and OU both had the best defenses in their conference and ranked #3 and #11 respectively.
In 2007, LSU beat the nation's best scoring defense in the BCS title game when the 17th ranked (scoring D) Tigers defeated the top-ranked (Scoring D) Ohio State Buckeyes.
Of course, now I guess it's only fair to go back and look at the same BCS title winners and see what their scoring average ranked nationally. Here ya go:
| YEAR | BCSWNR | OFFRNK |
|---|---|---|
| 2001 | MIA | 3 |
| 2002 | OHST | 41 |
| 2003 | LSU | 19 |
| 2004 | USC | 6 |
| 2005 | TEX | 1 |
| 2006 | FL | 23 |
| 2007 | LSU | 11 |
| 2008 | FL | 3 |
| 2009 | AL | 22 |
So, we see that the National Champ has come from the national top ten in scoring offense only four times in the past nine years. But, in all but one year, that champion has been from within the top 25. Even in 2004, all three teams who could lay any kind of claim on rights to be in the title game, USC (6), OU (14) and AU (18) were within that top 25. Still, the offensive side of the ball is obviously the area where elite performance is not as necessary to win a title.
Looking back in our first table, now, we see that in Richt's nine years at UGA, his teams have been inside that magical top-25 of scoring only once. Not surprisingly, that was his best team, the 13-1 2002 SEC Champions. If not for a late interception by a Florida CB, UGA may very well have been able to hoist the Crystal Football that season. Instead, we were on the outside looking in. We have not come close to being that good offensively again. Yes, we've had a higher average point total...but the game has changed in the last nine years. What was good enough for 22nd in 2002 wouldn't have made the top 35 in 2007.
We'll have to improve on offense - a lot. But, I don't see that being a huge problem. Our offensive line is the strongest it's been in three years. Our running back position is as strong as ever. Some would say that's impossible, given that Knowshon is no longer in the backfield...but 2009's backs did better than Knowshon did. The big fall-off for UGA last season was in the passing game, where Joe Cox was at times brilliant, but far more often middling-to-bad. I doubt Murray will put up numbers like Stafford did in 2008, but then again, Greene's arm was good enough for a 24 ranking nationally in his RSFreshman season. Who's to say Murray can't do that, too? He certainly has the receivers, if they stay healthy. Those who are looking for UGA to improve only marginally this year should definitely ready themselves for a surprise. We're gonna be much better.
For UGA since Richt started, the one consistent factor in all of its division titles and championship years has simply been Mark Richt. He was involved in the quarterback room early in his career, and we had success. He hired a firey, aggressive DC early in his career, and we had success. When he got away from those two things, we trended downward. Now, in 2010, his tenth season at UGA, Coach Richt is returning to the form he had in 2001. He has become much more no-nonsense, as shown by his recent removal of trouble-making players. He has become non-placating, as shown by his placement of Murray at the top of the depth chart. He is back in the meeting rooms, and he has brought in a top-shelf, aggressive defensive coordinator.
Expect UGA to be much improved, as Mark Richt is back...and Mark Richt is the thing.
Go Dawgs.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
A Bad Rule, and the Case For Cox....
For some reason, my last two posts did not show up on some of the blog trackers out there, so I'm posting this one to alert readers to their existence. Click here to head to the main blog page and check them out!
Go Dawgs.
Go Dawgs.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The Case For Joe Cox...
So, in the midst of all this amazing QB debate garbage, I thought I'd write a piece that will likely sound pretty strange to those who have been followers of my blog, or know me personally. I'm here to tell you why Georgia fans should be happy that Joe Cox was our quarterback in 2009.
Still reading? I'm actually a bit surprised, but glad to have your eyes. Let's get to it.
Now, if you aren't a David Hale reader...first off, shame on you. Secondly, you should check out this blog about this year's QB Battle. In it, you will find stats from last year's spring practices as well. These numbers had many people calling for Aaron Murray to be the starter from day one last year, and some others saying at the very least, Gray should be sharing equal reps with Joe Cox. Statistically, Cox was pretty weak in the spring.
As it turned out during the season, Cox's yards-per-attempt (7.8) was much better than in spring (5.3), his completion percentage was 4.9% higher (59.9 v 55), but his TD:INT ratio was terrible - 8:5 vs 3:1. THAT my friend, is the big knock on Cox. That's why people say he was so awful. That is why he will not be remembered with great fondness by a large percentage of the fanbase. However, I think those who are quick to paint Cox in a bad light should take a couple of things into consideration.
First - What were the options for Bobo and Richt? They could go with their fifth-year senior, the strong leader who the team trusted and would rally behind. Or, they could go with a sophomore option-style quarterback who had never gotten his feet wet in a game, and whose numbers were better in spring, but would ultimately prove to be a falsehood in the fall. Or, they could go with the true freshman who had all the fans going bananas during spring practice, but who obviously needed more time to learn the playbook and the system.
Still, today, many fans wish they'd seen Murray get the nod. Nevermind the fact that the kid was hurt for much of the season, and wouldn't have been at 100%. Nevermind the fact that he wouldn't be likely to check in and out of plays at the line (often checking OUT of a bad play is the best call a QB makes). No, the statline is the lone deciding factor for many of these fans.
These fans are nuts.
Look at Buck Bellue's stat line in the 1980 Sugar Bowl and tell me that's a performance you'd ever want to see. It was only good enough for a National Championship.
But, forget about 30 years ago. Let's look back to less than 12 months ago.
GM 1 - Joe Cox wasn't at 100% ... we all know that. I submit to you that if not for a phantom personal-foul against Reshad Jones on a perfectly legal hit, we win that game. Do you think the freshman with tendonitis would have fared well in that hostile environment? What about Logan? Would taking his first real snap in Stillwater have been the way to go? No. The answer is obvious. You go with Joe, if at all possible. You're not going to convince me that having Logan OR Aaron in that game would have given us a "W". 0 - 1
GM 2 - South Carolina rolls into town, bringing a stingy, blitzing defense. Cox was serviceable in this game. He even overcame the late pick to lead the team down and get the winning field goal. If Gray or Murray is in the game, the best we do is still win it. 1 - 1
GM 3 - Arkansas - without Cox, we don't win this one. That game became a shoot-out in the second quarter, and neither Gray nor Murray would have held their own against Mallet in that game. Neither defense played particularly well, but once again, this one was a big road game, this time IN the SEC. Cox's field knowledge gave him the leg-up up. Without Joe, we lose that one. 1 - 2
GM 4 - ASU - Cox wasn't brilliant, but didn't need to be. ASU really didn't have a shot in that one. In fact, Cox's less than stellar performance was the entire reason ASU was in that game. I think Murray or Gray would have been fine. 2 - 2
GM 5 - LSU - it pains me to even remember this game. This is the one game where I think having a running-type qb in the game may have helped us out. Joe had a great 4th quarter, and our defense had kept us in the game...but Cox was bad on 3rd down for much of that game. Our running game had yet to appear, so on 3rd and 4, we were forced to call pass plays. I'd like to think that a run-pass QB option would have been effective. I just don't know. I doubt that either Gray or Murray would have had the 4th that Cox had, but they may have played the other 3 quarters better, making the comeback run in the 4th unnecessary. Then again, against John Chavis? I doubt it. 2 - 3
GM 6 - TN - No way, no how. The defense had absolutely no answer for the play action pass (seriously?), and Monte Kiffin had his defense on search and destroy. Sorry, neither Gray nor Murray wins it. 2 - 4
GM 7 - Vandy - Vandy was just plain overmatched. Our QB wouldn't likely have made much a difference. This is one of the games where I wanted to see somebody getting some reps. 3 - 4
GM 8 - Florida - Come on. - 3 - 5
GM 9 - Tennessee Tech - Come on. (of course, UGA didn't score after Cox left) 4 - 5
GM 10 - Auburn - We don't win this without Joe. The way Auburn jumped on us early, the way we couldn't get the running game going. Who's gonna get the guys on the comeback trail? Is it Murray, who at this point in the season was rehabbing injury, or is it Gray, who had proven in his few minutes against FL that he wasn't ready for prime time? Sorry folks, no Joe, no W. 4 - 6
GM 11 - UK - Many people blame the UK loss on Joe Cox, and I think he definitely deserves a good bit of it. Those 2nd half interceptions were unbelievable. I actually watched that game on Tivo, knowing that we were going to lose, and at halftime, I couldn't figure out how it was going to happen. Still, don't forget all three of UGA's TDs in the game came from the arm of Joe Cox. I say we still lose to KY. 4 - 7
GM 12 - Georgia Tech - This one's not too difficult to call. We still win. Joe was pretty nonexistent in this one. At least he didn't throw a pick. This was the gameplan we'd liked to have seen for UGA all year long...run, run, run, toss one to keep them honest, blow them out. 5 - 7
Bowl? Nope.
What else? Well, at 5 - 7, Damon Evans might have been persuaded to listen to the yahoos calling for Mark Richt's head. So, he could very well be gone right now. That'd be a tragedy.
Instead, we're coming off a down year, yes, but one that the team can build on. I've said in my blog before that Richt has now had two long-term UGA quarterbacks who've done things two ways, redshirted (Greene) and thrown into the fire (Stafford). Who here remembers which one was the more successful college quarterback? Who remembers which one was the more naturally gifted? Ok, now, look at a kid like Aaron Murray. He's Naturally Gifted, AND because of Joe Cox, he's had a year to learn the system before he ever has to take a meaningful snap in a game.
ALSO because of Joe Cox, Zach Mettenburger has benefited from a true quarterback competition. He has grown by leaps and bounds. Had either Gray or Murray been annointed the starter in 2009, that would put Metts YEARS behind in his own mind. He'd be playing "catch-up". Instead, he's been pushing himself to be the starter.
ALSO because of Joe Cox, Mark Richt is back in the film room and will be a bigger part of QB development. Perhaps this is EXACTLY why Stafford and Cox didn't develop as well as we'd have liked. I don't know, but it would make sense. Richt had a pretty good history of developing QBs at FSU, and David Greene and Shockley both succeeded under his watch. As he stepped back though, it appears that the progress diminished. Looks like he doesn't want that happening any more.
Long story short, Joe Cox starting in 2009 was best for Georgia then, and it's best for Georgia's future. Whoever wins this quarterback battle in the fall will go into the season having prepared his best simply to win the job. He will have good knowledge of the offense, and will have faced scrutiny from the coach most qualified to offer it. And, he will continue to work to be the best, because he will have others pushing for his position. Without Joe Cox, we lose much of that.
Way to go, Joe.
Go Dawgs.
Still reading? I'm actually a bit surprised, but glad to have your eyes. Let's get to it.
Now, if you aren't a David Hale reader...first off, shame on you. Secondly, you should check out this blog about this year's QB Battle. In it, you will find stats from last year's spring practices as well. These numbers had many people calling for Aaron Murray to be the starter from day one last year, and some others saying at the very least, Gray should be sharing equal reps with Joe Cox. Statistically, Cox was pretty weak in the spring.
As it turned out during the season, Cox's yards-per-attempt (7.8) was much better than in spring (5.3), his completion percentage was 4.9% higher (59.9 v 55), but his TD:INT ratio was terrible - 8:5 vs 3:1. THAT my friend, is the big knock on Cox. That's why people say he was so awful. That is why he will not be remembered with great fondness by a large percentage of the fanbase. However, I think those who are quick to paint Cox in a bad light should take a couple of things into consideration.
First - What were the options for Bobo and Richt? They could go with their fifth-year senior, the strong leader who the team trusted and would rally behind. Or, they could go with a sophomore option-style quarterback who had never gotten his feet wet in a game, and whose numbers were better in spring, but would ultimately prove to be a falsehood in the fall. Or, they could go with the true freshman who had all the fans going bananas during spring practice, but who obviously needed more time to learn the playbook and the system.
Still, today, many fans wish they'd seen Murray get the nod. Nevermind the fact that the kid was hurt for much of the season, and wouldn't have been at 100%. Nevermind the fact that he wouldn't be likely to check in and out of plays at the line (often checking OUT of a bad play is the best call a QB makes). No, the statline is the lone deciding factor for many of these fans.
These fans are nuts.
Look at Buck Bellue's stat line in the 1980 Sugar Bowl and tell me that's a performance you'd ever want to see. It was only good enough for a National Championship.
But, forget about 30 years ago. Let's look back to less than 12 months ago.
GM 1 - Joe Cox wasn't at 100% ... we all know that. I submit to you that if not for a phantom personal-foul against Reshad Jones on a perfectly legal hit, we win that game. Do you think the freshman with tendonitis would have fared well in that hostile environment? What about Logan? Would taking his first real snap in Stillwater have been the way to go? No. The answer is obvious. You go with Joe, if at all possible. You're not going to convince me that having Logan OR Aaron in that game would have given us a "W". 0 - 1
GM 2 - South Carolina rolls into town, bringing a stingy, blitzing defense. Cox was serviceable in this game. He even overcame the late pick to lead the team down and get the winning field goal. If Gray or Murray is in the game, the best we do is still win it. 1 - 1
GM 3 - Arkansas - without Cox, we don't win this one. That game became a shoot-out in the second quarter, and neither Gray nor Murray would have held their own against Mallet in that game. Neither defense played particularly well, but once again, this one was a big road game, this time IN the SEC. Cox's field knowledge gave him the leg-up up. Without Joe, we lose that one. 1 - 2
GM 4 - ASU - Cox wasn't brilliant, but didn't need to be. ASU really didn't have a shot in that one. In fact, Cox's less than stellar performance was the entire reason ASU was in that game. I think Murray or Gray would have been fine. 2 - 2
GM 5 - LSU - it pains me to even remember this game. This is the one game where I think having a running-type qb in the game may have helped us out. Joe had a great 4th quarter, and our defense had kept us in the game...but Cox was bad on 3rd down for much of that game. Our running game had yet to appear, so on 3rd and 4, we were forced to call pass plays. I'd like to think that a run-pass QB option would have been effective. I just don't know. I doubt that either Gray or Murray would have had the 4th that Cox had, but they may have played the other 3 quarters better, making the comeback run in the 4th unnecessary. Then again, against John Chavis? I doubt it. 2 - 3
GM 6 - TN - No way, no how. The defense had absolutely no answer for the play action pass (seriously?), and Monte Kiffin had his defense on search and destroy. Sorry, neither Gray nor Murray wins it. 2 - 4
GM 7 - Vandy - Vandy was just plain overmatched. Our QB wouldn't likely have made much a difference. This is one of the games where I wanted to see somebody getting some reps. 3 - 4
GM 8 - Florida - Come on. - 3 - 5
GM 9 - Tennessee Tech - Come on. (of course, UGA didn't score after Cox left) 4 - 5
GM 10 - Auburn - We don't win this without Joe. The way Auburn jumped on us early, the way we couldn't get the running game going. Who's gonna get the guys on the comeback trail? Is it Murray, who at this point in the season was rehabbing injury, or is it Gray, who had proven in his few minutes against FL that he wasn't ready for prime time? Sorry folks, no Joe, no W. 4 - 6
GM 11 - UK - Many people blame the UK loss on Joe Cox, and I think he definitely deserves a good bit of it. Those 2nd half interceptions were unbelievable. I actually watched that game on Tivo, knowing that we were going to lose, and at halftime, I couldn't figure out how it was going to happen. Still, don't forget all three of UGA's TDs in the game came from the arm of Joe Cox. I say we still lose to KY. 4 - 7
GM 12 - Georgia Tech - This one's not too difficult to call. We still win. Joe was pretty nonexistent in this one. At least he didn't throw a pick. This was the gameplan we'd liked to have seen for UGA all year long...run, run, run, toss one to keep them honest, blow them out. 5 - 7
Bowl? Nope.
What else? Well, at 5 - 7, Damon Evans might have been persuaded to listen to the yahoos calling for Mark Richt's head. So, he could very well be gone right now. That'd be a tragedy.
Instead, we're coming off a down year, yes, but one that the team can build on. I've said in my blog before that Richt has now had two long-term UGA quarterbacks who've done things two ways, redshirted (Greene) and thrown into the fire (Stafford). Who here remembers which one was the more successful college quarterback? Who remembers which one was the more naturally gifted? Ok, now, look at a kid like Aaron Murray. He's Naturally Gifted, AND because of Joe Cox, he's had a year to learn the system before he ever has to take a meaningful snap in a game.
ALSO because of Joe Cox, Zach Mettenburger has benefited from a true quarterback competition. He has grown by leaps and bounds. Had either Gray or Murray been annointed the starter in 2009, that would put Metts YEARS behind in his own mind. He'd be playing "catch-up". Instead, he's been pushing himself to be the starter.
ALSO because of Joe Cox, Mark Richt is back in the film room and will be a bigger part of QB development. Perhaps this is EXACTLY why Stafford and Cox didn't develop as well as we'd have liked. I don't know, but it would make sense. Richt had a pretty good history of developing QBs at FSU, and David Greene and Shockley both succeeded under his watch. As he stepped back though, it appears that the progress diminished. Looks like he doesn't want that happening any more.
Long story short, Joe Cox starting in 2009 was best for Georgia then, and it's best for Georgia's future. Whoever wins this quarterback battle in the fall will go into the season having prepared his best simply to win the job. He will have good knowledge of the offense, and will have faced scrutiny from the coach most qualified to offer it. And, he will continue to work to be the best, because he will have others pushing for his position. Without Joe Cox, we lose much of that.
Way to go, Joe.
Go Dawgs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
