Georgia plays "old man football"

[Bewbies]

Pretty good article about next week's game here in the AJC. Pretty bold thing to say, quoted the money shot here...

http://blogs.ajc.com/uga-sports-blog...s-says-of-uga/

Missouri does not enter the SEC shyly. Quite the opposite, based on comments by one player.

According to an article in the Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune on Sunday, Missouri defensive tackle Sheldon Richardson was asked after the Tigers’ 62-10 victory over Southeastern Louisiana Saturday night if he watched the Georgia-Buffalo game on television earlier in the day.

“I watched the game. I turned it off, too,” Richardson was quoted as saying. “… It’s like watching Big Ten football. It’s old-man football.”

Then this: “If we execute, nobody in this league [the SEC] can touch us. Period.”

[Ace Gunner]

jesus. that helmet looks expensive as ****.

[Extra Point]

Originally Posted by frazod

Enjoy your cartoon chicken.

Five star slam! Congrats!

[Black Bob]

Georgia was so frusterating to watch last night. They really played terribly. The fact is that they ran the spread for whatever reason and they should have played "old man football."

Mizzou played a pretty good game. I think the difference was quality depth. Georgia had to start five freshmen because of the suspensions and Mizzou ran out of depth in the 4the quarter. Mizzou is close to being really good.

[kstater]

Originally Posted by qabbaan

Being a middle of the road team in the SEC on day one would be a very nice place to start. 5 of the top 10 ranked teams are in the SEC.

One of which lost to Louisiana Monroe

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Phobia

Three touchdowns is close? I don't mean that as a shit-talking question. I mean it as a reality check.

It was very close. Georgia built their lead off of short fields after comical turnovers. Georgia's offense didn't really have to work for their winning 21 points.

Those turnovers were caused by Jarvis Jones being awesome. In no way am I suggesting that Georgia didn't beat Missouri. Georgia took control of that game, for sure.

But it wasn't an expected SEC situation where the depth (or lack of depth) of each team becomes apparent as one team pulls away in the 4th quarter. This was different: in this game a special defensive player single-handidly took over a game.

[WilliamTheIrish]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

It was very close. Georgia built their lead off of short fields after comical turnovers. Georgia's offense didn't really have to work for their winning 21 points.

Those turnovers were caused by Jarvis Jones being awesome. In no way am I suggesting that Georgia didn't beat Missouri. Georgia took control of that game, for sure.

But it wasn't an expected SEC situation where the depth (or lack of depth) of each team becomes apparent as one team pulls away in the 4th quarter. This was different: in this game a special defensive player single-handidly took over a game.

I think for me, it's also underscored by the fact that this beating took place on MU's home field. With UGa starting five frosh. And a frosh placekicker. That's the part that stands out to me. I didn't expect to see them get dismantled like that on their own field.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

It was very close. Georgia built their lead off of short fields after comical turnovers. Georgia's offense didn't really have to work for their winning 21 points.

Those turnovers were caused by Jarvis Jones being awesome. In no way am I suggesting that Georgia didn't beat Missouri. Georgia took control of that game, for sure.

But it wasn't an expected SEC situation where the depth (or lack of depth) of each team becomes apparent as one team pulls away in the 4th quarter. This was different: in this game a special defensive player single-handidly took over a game.

That's actually exactly what I thought it was.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

It was very close. Georgia built their lead off of short fields after comical turnovers. Georgia's offense didn't really have to work for their winning 21 points.

Those turnovers were caused by Jarvis Jones being awesome. In no way am I suggesting that Georgia didn't beat Missouri. Georgia took control of that game, for sure.

But it wasn't an expected SEC situation where the depth (or lack of depth) of each team becomes apparent as one team pulls away in the 4th quarter. This was different: in this game a special defensive player single-handidly took over a game.

Georgia was also missing several key d players...
Posted via Mobile Device

[chiefzilla1501]

There's nothing wrong with Old Man Football. I don't think the problem with Big 10 football is the style of football, it's their passive style of recruiting that short-changes them on talent. It's an old man's "gentlemen's agreement" league.

If Mizzou thinks "old man football" is a bad thing, they're in for a rude awakening. Lots of teams that play terrific defense and will back that defense up with a running game that runs it down your throat with good downhill running and an offensive line that will overpower you.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

Georgia was also missing several key d players...
Posted via Mobile Device

What does your ellipses imply?

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

There's nothing wrong with Old Man Football. I don't think the problem with Big 10 football is the style of football, it's their passive style of recruiting that short-changes them on talent. It's an old man's "gentlemen's agreement" league.

If Mizzou thinks "old man football" is a bad thing, they're in for a rude awakening. Lots of teams that play terrific defense and will back that defense up with a running game that runs it down your throat with good downhill running and an offensive line that will overpower you.

Mizzou doesn't have a problem with "old man football" as a theory or approach. One egotistical, loud-mouthed defensive tackle that plays for Mizzou has a problem with it.

[SAUTO]

That it would have most likely been worse
Posted via Mobile Device

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

That it would have most likely been worse
Posted via Mobile Device

Very well could have been, sure. Mizzou found some passing success in the middle of the field, and those yards would have been harder to come by with Georgia at full strength. But that's a wash, because a full-strength Mizzou o-line would have improved Franklin's timing on passes as well as the run game.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Very well could have been, sure. Mizzou found some passing success in the middle of the field, and those yards would have been harder to come by with Georgia at full strength. But that's a wash, because a full-strength Mizzou o-line would have improved Franklin's timing on passes as well as the run game.

maybe.

I don't believe mu is going to have a good line, never did. Even without the injuries.

They hung in there but I disagree about the depth issues.

When a team pulls away in the last ten minutes it's usually about depth and condition.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

maybe.

I don't believe mu is going to have a good line, never did. Even without the injuries.

They hung in there but I disagree about the depth issues.

When a team pulls away in the last ten minutes it's usually about depth and condition.
Posted via Mobile Device

You're certainly right. It's usually about depth and condition when a team pulls away in the 4th quarter. And, no question about it, Georgia is the deeper team.

But that wasn't the case last night. That depth disparity might have resulted in Georgia pulling away in normal circumstances, but we didn't get normal circumstances. Those MU turnovers had very little to do with depth and conditioning.

[Demonpenz]

Georgia were hitting hard yesterday as well. Mizzou has to bring more of a physical game.