Started By
Message
re: I’ll admit it… Georgia has the best defense I’ve ever seen.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 6:33 am to Crimsonite94
Posted on 10/21/21 at 6:33 am to Crimsonite94
quote:
I’ll admit it… Georgia has the best defense I’ve ever seen.
I’ll admit it…no one here thinks you're an expert on football defensive or otherwise.
0
Posted on 10/21/21 at 6:34 am to FooManChoo
quote:"absolutely $tifling" said the $30,000,000...
However, I wouldn't bet on it. Even bad offenses can score points on decent defenses, but our defense has been absolutely stifling outside of a few drives all season.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 6:35 am to Marktastic86
quote:
I'm interested to see them play a team with a dynamic passing attack.
This is an unknown. What is also unknown, but often assumed, is that we can't stop a dynamic passing attack. The secondary may be the weakest link in the chain, but it's still a very strong link. There are not many in the conference that are as good or better.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 6:52 am to koreandawg
Possibly true. Like you said we don’t really know because they haven’t been tested yet.
What we do know, is that in recent history when a good secondary faces an equally good skill player group (WR/RB/QB all of equal talent/ability), the offensive side almost always gets the better of the defensive side. The offenses UGA has faced aren’t necessarily bad as much as they’re just ill suited to attack the UGA def in a way that makes sense. Kentucky, Arkansas, and even AU simply don’t have the horses for it. The only ones that probably did so far was probably Clemson and their QB has turned out to be an absolute bust from his recruiting rankings.
What we do know, is that in recent history when a good secondary faces an equally good skill player group (WR/RB/QB all of equal talent/ability), the offensive side almost always gets the better of the defensive side. The offenses UGA has faced aren’t necessarily bad as much as they’re just ill suited to attack the UGA def in a way that makes sense. Kentucky, Arkansas, and even AU simply don’t have the horses for it. The only ones that probably did so far was probably Clemson and their QB has turned out to be an absolute bust from his recruiting rankings.
This post was edited on 10/21/21 at 6:55 am
Posted on 10/21/21 at 7:40 am to DawgCountry
quote:
I’m honestly torn if this is Phan, after a stroke…or a masterful troll by Monteg
Comes off as Ms Garrison to me. Tries to find some point that gets attention and then hammers at it over and over.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 7:46 am to iglass
It's a very good and valid opinion. You made several points that makes sense and I had not thought about. 
Posted on 10/21/21 at 7:49 am to HighTide_ATL
UGA has thumped the #1 receiver in the SEC and probably first WR drafted next year (treylon burks).
We also thumped the #1 receiver in the SEC heading into last week.
Cfbstats has KJ Jefferson as the third best downfield QB in conference play (8.5 y/a including the UGA game).
He finished against UGA at 5 yards per attempt and 65 yards total.
Just admit that you are grasping at straws.
We also thumped the #1 receiver in the SEC heading into last week.
Cfbstats has KJ Jefferson as the third best downfield QB in conference play (8.5 y/a including the UGA game).
He finished against UGA at 5 yards per attempt and 65 yards total.
Just admit that you are grasping at straws.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 7:52 am to koreandawg
quote:
To be fair, they had 15 penalties with 9 false starts. I doubt we get those gifts. I'm not worried about the game. Just saying we'll probably get a better effort than they gave Kentucky overall.
I agree with you. And the previous poster also missed the Florida fans point....that they would be playing a different (better?) QB against us. It's hard for me to see a big difference in the passing abilities of Richardson and Jones, but Richardson certainly appears to be a better runner.
And we don't really know who will start. I mean, Mullen started Franks over Trask for way too long, too. He could do the same with Jones/Richardson, too. Who knows what he will do.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 7:57 am to NorthPark
quote:
the 39 Vols gave up 1.3 points a game. Statistically, I doubt that record is ever touched.
You aren't comparing offenses and defenses played back then to today, are you?
That's like saying passing defenses in 1912 were much better because they gave up fewer passing yards. If you check, the first forward pass was done in....1913.
I mean, do you think it is a fair comparison to compare the 1939 Vols to todays defenses?
Posted on 10/21/21 at 8:00 am to Marktastic86
quote:
Every decent team UGA has played has had offenses that are heavily based on the run with a limited passing game. Georgia is great at stopping the run. I'm interested to see them play a team with a dynamic passing attack.
I mean, that's fair. It will be interesting. But all the OP can do is compare on what has been played to this point. His opinion might hold up and it might not.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 11:00 am to DawgsLife
The athletes are better on both sides of the ball from then and now. Since we do not have a time machine statistics is the only way of comparing results,
Posted on 10/21/21 at 11:25 am to NorthPark
Well. This troll thread turned into a real keeper lol,
Posted on 10/21/21 at 11:43 am to Crimsonite94
This is normal. Everybody says Bama has won more titles than any other school but that is not factual. Yale has won the most, We discredit their results in this century because we know our athletes are better in this century.
But in a 100 years the argument will be Most of the Nattys have been won in a politically biased voting system, They may want to just count the results since we had a legit fair playoff system.
But in a 100 years the argument will be Most of the Nattys have been won in a politically biased voting system, They may want to just count the results since we had a legit fair playoff system.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 11:48 am to NorthPark
quote:
the 39 Vols gave up 1.3 points a game. Statistically, I doubt that record is ever touched.
While I realize modern day football is much different (and more competitive and difficult) than old football. Yall trying to d*ck measure using old school records can just sit down.
Let me introduce you to the 1919 Texas A&M football team. 10-0, undefeated AND unscored upon. 275 points for, 0 against for the season. So yall can go back to the kiddie table now.
1919 A&M Statistics
Again, its not to brag or compare ourselves to modern football. Just to put yall trying to brag on 50+ year old records in place. Oh, and we also did it in 1917 going 8-0 and unscored upon.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 11:53 am to NorthPark
quote:
The athletes are better on both sides of the ball from then and now. Since we do not have a time machine statistics is the only way of comparing results,
And by going by statistics you would get very bad results. If you go by just statistics then how many QBs are better than Tom Brady, Brett Favre etc?
For instance...does anyone really believe that Timmy Chang is the 2nd best QB to ever play college football? he was according to statistics.
How about Case Keenum? Was he the best QB to ever play college football?
That's why I don't think bare statistics give a whole picture. Neither would be considered in the top 50 probably but statistics say they were #1 and #2.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 11:58 am to NorthPark
quote:
This is normal. Everybody says Bama has won more titles than any other school but that is not factual. Yale has won the most, We discredit their results in this century because we know our athletes are better in this century.
Actually this is true and false. We also discredit it because they played 3 or 4 games for a season. Not 3 or 4 good teams. 3 or 4 total games.
Princeton won a National Championship in 1869 with a 2-2 record, for instance.
In 1870 they won one with a 1-0 record. They scored 6 points.
That's why you don't bring up old, old statistics.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 12:02 pm to DawgsLife
Bro that long ago, the kickers of today would have been WRs.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 12:15 pm to Crimsonite94
quote:
Bro that long ago, the kickers of today would have been WRs.
Agreed. You just can't compare two totally different eras.
I mean, I get that this was supposed to be a troll thread. But it's an interesting topic to kick around. not sure you can even compare 2000 teams to today with the offensive changes. I just don't remember seeing two better defenses than 2011 LSU and Alabama.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 12:45 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
That's why I don't think bare statistics give a whole picture. Neither would be considered in the top 50 probably but statistics say they were #1 and #2.
Raw stats no. Stats with context are much more helpful though. Annoys the shite out of me when I hear someone say “team X has a top 5 offense in the country” and I find out they’re sorting by total offensive yards per game or some shite lol
Posted on 10/21/21 at 12:47 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
In 1870 they won one with a 1-0 record. They scored 6 points.
They won a natty while only averaging 6 points per game? That defense must've been insane.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News