- Messages
- 3,281
Well I finally got around to watching all the defensive series in slo-mo. As always, it was pretty revealing. I have a ton of stuff I could write, but frankly, I am too darned tired right now so I will stick to a few major observations. Besides, I mostly do this thing to kind of catalog the season and see how things develop along the way. The season is now over and I must admit I lack the motivation.
I felt the defense played well overall. With the exception of a couple busted assignments in the secondary, there really isn't that much to complain about. The kids tackled well and generally played quite hard. When the game started we pressed them in man coverage and crowded the line a little. It was obvious that we wanted to make an early statement and felt pressure to do so. The strategy worked, as this was our most effective period in the game. We played a lot of our base and some nickel. We faked the blitz a heck of a lot more than we actually ran it. I feel the game changed for the defense once we had a good lead. Like a lot of DCs do, CTR called off the pressure and played a little safer once we were up 20-0. We backed off on the edges ran a lot more zone coverage. It seemed we wanted to make them burn clock and go the long field to score. Predictably, they were able to move the ball, even if not explosively. We have not been a good zone defense all year, it would be crazy to expect it now. I understand why coaches make those kinds of decisions. Primarily, they probably don't want to answer the tough post game questions if they allow some big plays and an opponent back in the game as a result. However, I am just a little disappointed because if something is working, my first instinct is to stick with it. I am firm in my opinion that we are a much better man defense than zone defense and have been all year. We went man again after that Vad's pick in Q4 and got them stopped. The game was hanging in the balance then.
The guys making the argument that we were gassed along the DL by games end and OT are probably closer to right than not. It was a war up front and it was a long second half for those guys without a lot of subbing. I probably would have done the same thing hoping to hold the lead.
That was probably the most fair I have ever seen an SEC crew call a TECH-UGA game ever. However, there were a couple of missed BLATANT holding calls in the first drive of half 2 that extended the drive for the mutts and allowed them to get points on the board. Quite frankly, it changed the game for them. The first came on a second down scramble by their QB that was tackled a yard short of the sticks. Cummings had beaten his man and was right there to take down the QB around the LOS. #68 for the mutts left another man and basically bear hugged Cummings from behind right in front of the back judge ref. No call. The penalty would have backed them up to 2nd and 17 from inside the 10. Instead they get 2nd and 1 and convert. Later in the same drive a completion to move the sticks was made on 3rd down where a hold kept one of our guys off the QB. Most likely it would have been a sack if not totally disrupting the throw. 3rd and really long vs first and 10. It is totally sour grapes. I know. Every game I see holding calls let go and I don't mention it because it is so commonplace. However, IMHO, these were worse than normal.
It is no secret, we are weak along the DL. I think our guys have improved as a run defense unit, but we still lack any consistency in the pass rush. Either JA makes a huge play and gets a sack, or we don't even get close. We didn't blitz much. When we did, we got stoned. You could tell, we were hyper-aware of their screen game and made it a priority to keep it in check. GT rushing only 4 right now is bad news for the secondary.
Attaochu, played his best game as a Jacket, ever. Dieke actually made a play that wasn't steered into him. He beat his man and got a tackle for a loss on a sweep.
Girly man looked like he was running trying not to get hurt. I am not sure what was up with him. He has a good burst when he gets a crease, but he ran a lot harder in traffic last year.
What is the UGAg QB's name again, Mason? He is really a pretty good player. I would give him high marks for a first start. He throws better and sees the field better than most guys we have faced. I don't think there is a big let down after whats-his-face.
I felt the defense played well overall. With the exception of a couple busted assignments in the secondary, there really isn't that much to complain about. The kids tackled well and generally played quite hard. When the game started we pressed them in man coverage and crowded the line a little. It was obvious that we wanted to make an early statement and felt pressure to do so. The strategy worked, as this was our most effective period in the game. We played a lot of our base and some nickel. We faked the blitz a heck of a lot more than we actually ran it. I feel the game changed for the defense once we had a good lead. Like a lot of DCs do, CTR called off the pressure and played a little safer once we were up 20-0. We backed off on the edges ran a lot more zone coverage. It seemed we wanted to make them burn clock and go the long field to score. Predictably, they were able to move the ball, even if not explosively. We have not been a good zone defense all year, it would be crazy to expect it now. I understand why coaches make those kinds of decisions. Primarily, they probably don't want to answer the tough post game questions if they allow some big plays and an opponent back in the game as a result. However, I am just a little disappointed because if something is working, my first instinct is to stick with it. I am firm in my opinion that we are a much better man defense than zone defense and have been all year. We went man again after that Vad's pick in Q4 and got them stopped. The game was hanging in the balance then.
The guys making the argument that we were gassed along the DL by games end and OT are probably closer to right than not. It was a war up front and it was a long second half for those guys without a lot of subbing. I probably would have done the same thing hoping to hold the lead.
That was probably the most fair I have ever seen an SEC crew call a TECH-UGA game ever. However, there were a couple of missed BLATANT holding calls in the first drive of half 2 that extended the drive for the mutts and allowed them to get points on the board. Quite frankly, it changed the game for them. The first came on a second down scramble by their QB that was tackled a yard short of the sticks. Cummings had beaten his man and was right there to take down the QB around the LOS. #68 for the mutts left another man and basically bear hugged Cummings from behind right in front of the back judge ref. No call. The penalty would have backed them up to 2nd and 17 from inside the 10. Instead they get 2nd and 1 and convert. Later in the same drive a completion to move the sticks was made on 3rd down where a hold kept one of our guys off the QB. Most likely it would have been a sack if not totally disrupting the throw. 3rd and really long vs first and 10. It is totally sour grapes. I know. Every game I see holding calls let go and I don't mention it because it is so commonplace. However, IMHO, these were worse than normal.
It is no secret, we are weak along the DL. I think our guys have improved as a run defense unit, but we still lack any consistency in the pass rush. Either JA makes a huge play and gets a sack, or we don't even get close. We didn't blitz much. When we did, we got stoned. You could tell, we were hyper-aware of their screen game and made it a priority to keep it in check. GT rushing only 4 right now is bad news for the secondary.
Attaochu, played his best game as a Jacket, ever. Dieke actually made a play that wasn't steered into him. He beat his man and got a tackle for a loss on a sweep.
Girly man looked like he was running trying not to get hurt. I am not sure what was up with him. He has a good burst when he gets a crease, but he ran a lot harder in traffic last year.
What is the UGAg QB's name again, Mason? He is really a pretty good player. I would give him high marks for a first start. He throws better and sees the field better than most guys we have faced. I don't think there is a big let down after whats-his-face.
