Started By
Message
re: Is this the cost of finally getting the playoffs in CFB?
Posted on 9/2/14 at 3:58 pm to Damn Good Dawg
Posted on 9/2/14 at 3:58 pm to Damn Good Dawg
quote:
Think he just wanted more exposure for the team. 45-21 is nice. 52-21 is the tits. It was very un-Richtian though.
He wanted to see Dabo snap like the rest of us.
0
Posted on 9/2/14 at 3:58 pm to Loathor
RUTS does not exist, if you don't like it bring a better team.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 3:59 pm to Loathor
quote:
don't you have another QB who would have benefited by getting some playing time in actual game environment?
Great idea. We could have brought in a very hungry QB and kept running the offense wide open to get him some meaningful playing time.
Is that what you are saying?
Or by meaningful playing time are you saying that we bring is a 2nd string spread offense QB and hand the ball off?
Just need some clarification on playing time in actual game environment because it sounds like you think we should have brought him in and kept running the offense?? I am confused because it sounds like you would have been okay if we ran up the score with 2nd team.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:03 pm to Stingray
quote:
SOS and margin of victory should absolutely factor in determining rankings.
You lost by like 4 TDs. It wasn't 70-0. Stop being a bitch.
Thanks?
SOS I agree should definitely be taken into consideration, but the margin of victory on paper is subjective. A twelve point victory where you dominated for the entire game and gave up a couple of trash time touchdowns shouldn't be viewed as less than a twenty-one point victory where you put up three late trash touchdowns (no matter the manner) in an otherwise tough game. I'm not sure I trust a panel of semi-interested parties to make that difference. But I'm jaded, evidently.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:04 pm to Loathor
Sometimes you just need to drop it. 
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:05 pm to Loathor
quote:
Even when he has a freshman QB that could have gotten valuable experience against an SEC defense (of sorts).
As opposed to a Sophomore QB starting his first game and playing only his 5th game overall?
You forget that A&M had a drive that took the last 10:05 of the game. They topped it off by running the clock out instead of scoring.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:05 pm to Tridentds
quote:
Great idea. We could have brought in a very hungry QB and kept running the offense wide open to get him some meaningful playing time.
Is that what you are saying?
Or by meaningful playing time are you saying that we bring is a 2nd string spread offense QB and hand the ball off?
Just need some clarification on playing time in actual game environment because it sounds like you think we should have brought him in and kept running the offense?? I am confused because it sounds like you would have been okay if we ran up the score with 2nd team.
Honestly... if you put in Allen and continued to score with him running Sumlin's offense I wouldn't have minded. Our D was quite a shite show and could have used some more experience against that type of offense.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:05 pm to Tridentds
quote:
Sometimes you just need to drop it.
Meh... bored at the end of a slow work day...
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:06 pm to Korin
quote:
He put all of our starters back in just to be the first visiting team to score 50 in Sanford.
Yes he did!
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:06 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
As opposed to a Sophomore QB starting his first game and playing only his 5th game overall?
You forget that A&M had a drive that took the last 10:05 of the game. They topped it off by running the clock out instead of scoring.
Would you think Allen would benefit more from getting mop up duty against Lamar or South Carolina?
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:07 pm to Nguyening
quote:
We had walk ons in on def and offense the entire 4th.
Bass and Moeller are on scholarship now. We didn't have a single defensive walk-on play. Niederhofer was the only walk-on on offense.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:08 pm to DoUrden
quote:
RUTS does not exist, if you don't like it bring a better team.
If running up the score doesn't exist then why all the vitriol about Spurrier getting his just deserts... twenty years after he did it at Florida?
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:10 pm to Damn Good Dawg
quote:CU is in the ACC. After their arse whooping by FSU in week 3 they're prolly gonna finish 10-2 or 9-3 depending on the SCe game & could finish the season somewhere between #10(if 10-2) to #16- #20(at 9-3). CMR just thinking ahead towards Dec. 52-21 vs a #10-#20 team looks good when they're trying to decide SOS for the playoff teams (if we get that far
Think he just wanted more exposure for the team. 45-21 is nice. 52-21 is the tits. It was very un-Richtian though.
)...Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:11 pm to Tridentds
quote:
I was surprised too. Figured there must be some history behind it that I wasn't aware of.
Not that i am aware of...caught everybody by surprise. While I don't necessarily like the score to be run up on people, I think Most Georgia fans are hoping our coaching staff has a little sharper edge to them this year.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:12 pm to Loathor
quote:
Clemson Fan
quote:
I'm completely aware that we got stomped by a better A&M
this stuff confuses me
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:13 pm to ejohns74
quote:
this stuff confuses me
Lost a bet... sorry for the confusion.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:15 pm to Loathor
quote:
Loathor
Grow a set, bruh.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:16 pm to Loathor
Uhhhh, we ran out the final 10 minutes in the 4th without scoring. And could easily have done so. So...
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:16 pm to Mizz-SEC
quote:
Grow a set, bruh.
Eat a dick, brah...
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:16 pm to Bob Ag
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News