Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:17 am to djsdawg
quote:
We didn't have a legit sec tackle on the roster, and Catalina didn't come to uga to play guard.
Point taken. But when we still didn't have a legit tackle on the roster when Catalina came, did we? And while he didn't come to UGA to play guard, we would have been better off putting him there. Which is better? Putting players in positions where they have the best chance to succeed, or putting them at a position they have no chance to succeed?
It is the coaches jobs to evaluate. I will always maintain we would have been better off putting players in their natural positions than to play everybody out of position. We had centers playing guard, and guards playing tackles and center. Had we played out best center at center, and our best guards at guard, we could have at lest run up the middle. As it was, we struggled running anywhere.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:19 am to DawgsLife
We also struggled at running when our Oline was outnumbered by 2 or 3.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:22 am to DawgsLife
quote:
And while he didn't come to UGA to play guard, we would have been better off putting him there.
I don't understand why we didn't try him out at RT. For starters Pyke is absolutely not a tackle, period. He showed earlier in his career he was a damn good RG, so it seems like we shoudl have put him at his natural home there and moved catalina to RT. Teh coaches are obviously not opposed to putting Wynn at LT, so alhtough it wouldn't be perfectly ideal it seems a line of Wynn/Kindley or whoever/Kubs/Pyke/Catalina would have fared a little better. Obviously I didn't see every practice though so I assume the coaches like catalina for some reason.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:24 am to djsdawg
quote:
When we got an ot transfer in Catalina, that wasn't necessary anymore.
Most people on this board was saying Catalina had no business at OT after the third game of the season. So, apparently it was necessary. If most on the board saw it, then the coaches should have seen it.
quote:
I doubt Catalina picks uga if we take him away from his ot position, so we stuck to our promises with him, or perhaps he was even worse at og since that's not the position he knew.
If true, then we would have been better off if he had not come here. Are you saying that Kirby is too loyal to some players and not playing the best combination out of this loyalty? It was a 5 loss team. We should have moved players to their natural positions that they would be playing this year to give them reps and experience. now we are starting from scratch with some of these guys. Imagine starting this year with three OLinemen with a lot of game experience at their natural positions they will be playing this year.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:24 am to Peter Buck
Do you understand the concept of getting "the 5 best on the field"? In order to do that, Catalina was a necessity at LT. Being our LT was why we recruited him and why he picked uga. As bad as he was, he was better than the other options to round out a top 5 ol.
Also, you obviously missed the fact that our current tackle is now over 300 pounds right now, unlike last year.
Also, you obviously missed the fact that our current tackle is now over 300 pounds right now, unlike last year.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:27 am to djsdawg
I don't understand football... you should teach me...
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:28 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
I don't understand why we didn't try him out at RT.
Good point. Move Pyke in to play guard and Catalina over to RT. What you are saying makes sense.
quote:
Obviously I didn't see every practice though so I assume the coaches like catalina for some reason.
I still don't think Catalina was as bad as many thought. However, he was slow to read what the DE was doing and reacting to it. RT might have been where he needed to be.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:31 am to djsdawg
quote:
Do you understand the concept of getting "the 5 best on the field"?
I understand the concept of putting players at their best positions. Playing everybody out of position is a recipe for disaster, which is what we got. Were any of our 5 starting OLinemen playing in their best position, or were they the very best player for that position? I would rather have a weaker LT and strong everywhere else, than mediocre to below mediocre at every line position.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:38 am to DawgsLife
quote:
And while he didn't come to UGA to play guard, we would have been better off putting him there.
Maybe. As I said, perhaps he was even worse at og since that's not the position he knew. I would imagine he had a better chance at tackle than guard due to experience.
quote:
will always maintain we would have been better off putting players in their natural positions than to play everybody out of position. We had centers playing guard, and guards playing tackles and center. Had we played out best center at center, and our best guards at guard, we could have at lest run up the middle. As it was, we struggled running anywhere.
It was a mess, but Someone had to play tackle. We didn't have one capable and natural OT on the roster, so we went out and found an OT transfer and moved our most experienced tallest OL to OT. I also think we played our best center at center, but he was abused often.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 12:01 pm to djsdawg
It wasn't a mess due to the roster... there was enough talent in place for a serviceable line in the SEC. The mess was created when defenses were able to stack the line on 1st and 2nd down and then were able to take favorable splits and come full speed after the QB on 3rd ... and did not have to pay the price for doing so.
There were a lot of factors in play. New system, very green QB, lack of consistent goto WRs and threat of being burned deep. The coaches shoulder a lot of the blame for the game plan,strategy, and play calling... People who go on the www and yell about the putrid and pourus line on the internet should stick to things they know better such as loading the dishwasher and sucking cock...
There were a lot of factors in play. New system, very green QB, lack of consistent goto WRs and threat of being burned deep. The coaches shoulder a lot of the blame for the game plan,strategy, and play calling... People who go on the www and yell about the putrid and pourus line on the internet should stick to things they know better such as loading the dishwasher and sucking cock...
Posted on 8/11/17 at 12:12 pm to Peter Buck
quote:
We also struggled at running when our Oline was outnumbered by 2 or 3.
Yeah, well, that definitely makes a difference!
Posted on 8/11/17 at 12:20 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Maybe. As I said, perhaps he was even worse at og since that's not the position he knew. I would imagine he had a better chance at tackle than guard due to experience.
If that is the case, then put him on the bench. You can't continue to throw an over matched player out there and expect success. Or, as WG pointed out...why not move him over to RT where his pass blocking isn't as much of an issue.
quote:
It was a mess, but Someone had to play tackle. We didn't have one capable and natural OT on the roster, so we went out and found an OT transfer and moved our most experienced tallest OL to OT.
It was a mess. But we had our best OLinemen playing out of position as evidenced that they are all in different positions this year. (Although, your point that our "new" tackle weighs considerably more this year, than last is legit.) Maybe I am nitpicking, but I would rather have given the guys reps last year, at the positions they are playing this year. It couldn't have been worse. (Or could it?
) I really feel our coaches stubbed their toes last year in this area. Players out of position, blocking scheme and a lack of great talent or physical talent that matched the coaches OLine philosophy. I guess in short, I think both you and Peter are correct. I think it was a combination of all those factors, to form the perfect storm.
However, that said, I think our coaches grew and learned last year, and we will see a different approach this year.
This post was edited on 8/11/17 at 12:24 pm
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:19 pm to Peter Buck
quote:
It wasn't a mess due to the roster... there was enough talent in place for a serviceable line in the SEC. The mess was created when defenses were able to stack the line on 1st and 2nd down and then were able to take favorable splits and come full speed after the QB on 3rd ... and did not have to pay the price for doing so.
When you are forced to recruit a kid from Rhode Island because you don't have an OT, and play a benched OG at OT, you have a glaring roster issue. Doesn't mean there weren't other issues in addition to that as you pointed out. You are the only one that seems to be discounting one obvious issue. I think Your history as a lunch pail OL is blinding you and making you defensive for no good reason.
To make matters worse, now you are talking about being a gay, which is a whole different issue you should keep to yourself.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:36 pm to djsdawg
I'll take that as your concession.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:44 pm to Peter Buck
That doesnt even make sense. No, I will not suck your dick, but our OL had roster issues in 2016. Once you move past your depravity, you might be able to see it.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:59 pm to djsdawg
quote:
I will not suck your dick
There's only one little word in there that's the difference from you saying "I will suck your dick" so you must kinda want to, common sense man. But keep gimping out, time will tell.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:01 pm to deeprig9
At least you know he/she wouldn't stop... that's a plus
Posted on 8/11/17 at 2:10 pm to deeprig9
"Not" is the key word. What does it say about you that you dont have an issue with Peter and his depraved thoughts?
Posted on 8/11/17 at 9:49 pm to djsdawg
God you're an idiot.
Page 7 of 13
Latest Georgia News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News