The game looked nothing like I expected

Yaller Jacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
955
Having seen Michel and Chubb before, I was not afraid of them. I had read their O line was not up to par. We have been a decent, if not good, run stopping team. I guessed that we could keep their run game in check and stopping them would mostly depend on whether we could pressure Eason. I came away very impressed with their run game, especially their back Michel. He is wiry strong, great balance, quick as a cat. Not so impressed with Eason and their passing game in general. Eason threw many balls that were catchable but too many which turned an easy throw into a difficult catch.

If Richt and Bobo had still been around, they would have killed us on play action passes after some of those good runs.

It seems somehow fitting to be on the other side of the stats talk. Too many times after a close loss we trot out our time of possession, number of rushing yards, number of first downs and wonder why we still lost. In this game, they lost because we got big scoring plays and got touchdowns inside the red zone. We won because we limited them to field goals inside the red zone and they got not a single big play.
 

YJMD

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,599
Thank you, Ted Roof.

We seemed to play pretty aggressive in the secondary for the first time in a while, especially in the screen game. A few soft spots, dropped passes, etc. But we didn't let Eason find anything easy to get in rhythm, and UGA wasn't gonna throw it a bunch of times to get him comfortable either. Also blitzed a bunch on throwing downs, which weren't effective so much as letting him know he had to make a decision quick. And we were still conservative enough on 1st and 2nd to prevent the big plays.

Personally, I think it's a really good gameplan that we should use going forward. Our secondary can make some plays and will be very deep going into next year. That put pressure on our DL to hold up in the run game, and they got pushed off the spot a lot, but, not trying to be heroes let the LBs clean things up and in the 4th Q we were able to get a stop and an INT. The INT only happened because of our gameplan during the day and that we were successfully stuffing the run at that point.

If Brandon Adams can get into every down playing shape, I think we have a major opportunity to step up defensively next year. Losing PJ hurts a lot in limiting runs and blitzing, but our other bodies can do more things, and if we're less afraid to let safeties play downhill then we'll be less dependent upon that spot for run support.
 

IronJacket7

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,544
We seemed to play pretty aggressive in the secondary for the first time in a while, especially in the screen game. A few soft spots, dropped passes, etc. But we didn't let Eason find anything easy to get in rhythm, and UGA wasn't gonna throw it a bunch of times to get him comfortable either. Also blitzed a bunch on throwing downs, which weren't effective so much as letting him know he had to make a decision quick. And we were still conservative enough on 1st and 2nd to prevent the big plays.

Personally, I think it's a really good gameplan that we should use going forward. Our secondary can make some plays and will be very deep going into next year. That put pressure on our DL to hold up in the run game, and they got pushed off the spot a lot, but, not trying to be heroes let the LBs clean things up and in the 4th Q we were able to get a stop and an INT. The INT only happened because of our gameplan during the day and that we were successfully stuffing the run at that point.

If Brandon Adams can get into every down playing shape, I think we have a major opportunity to step up defensively next year. Losing PJ hurts a lot in limiting runs and blitzing, but our other bodies can do more things, and if we're less afraid to let safeties play downhill then we'll be less dependent upon that spot for run support.
Thank you, Ted Roof.
 

Sideways

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,589
Having seen Michel and Chubb before, I was not afraid of them. I had read their O line was not up to par. We have been a decent, if not good, run stopping team. I guessed that we could keep their run game in check and stopping them would mostly depend on whether we could pressure Eason. I came away very impressed with their run game, especially their back Michel. He is wiry strong, great balance, quick as a cat. Not so impressed with Eason and their passing game in general. Eason threw many balls that were catchable but too many which turned an easy throw into a difficult catch.

If Richt and Bobo had still been around, they would have killed us on play action passes after some of those good runs.

It seems somehow fitting to be on the other side of the stats talk. Too many times after a close loss we trot out our time of possession, number of rushing yards, number of first downs and wonder why we still lost. In this game, they lost because we got big scoring plays and got touchdowns inside the red zone. We won because we limited them to field goals inside the red zone and they got not a single big play.

Boy that Michel is some kind of football player. Why they did not keep feeding him the ball on their last possession I will never understand. I was impressed with their line. They did not look that good against Florida. For about the umpteenth time, I saw a team that consistently underachieves relative to their talent. I really don't want to hear about "lack of depth" or MR left a bare cupboard. No, they have plenty of talent but as is usual with them it has been squandered.
 

bravejason

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
307
I think Eason had an off day, though a couple of his incompletions probably should have been caught. I was really surprised by Eason's throw on the last play of the game. The ball was at least 10 yards short of where it should have been and I think he has the arm to make that throw. He had been scrambling just before the throw and I suspect he thought he had less time than he did to set up and throw the ball further.

Some GT fans complain about CPJ being stubborn on offense by running the same few plays over and over. What I see from some uga fans is that they complain that their OC starts calling passes when they should keep calling runs or vice versa because the OC wants a balanced offense in terms of number of run plays and pass plays. uga was having so much success running the ball that I wonder if they got off track by throwing when they should have kept running.
 

Yaller Jacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
955
Reading about the game from their side, I've seen some asking why they didn't run the ball more and others saying that calling the runs had become predictable and they should have passed more. I like having them in a state of not knowing whether they should scratch their watch or wind their butts.

More than one Georgia reporter said this was the best game their O line has played all year. I think they played with a little extra fire for Tech.

Did Ted sub a lot on the line during the game? The reason why I ask is that it occurred to me this morning that we played our best defense in the 4th quarter. We know from the other side the norm is when you have run on a defense all day it gets easier in the 4th quarter. They are both tired and discouraged. Yet we reached down for something extra when we had to have it.
 

TheSilasSonRising

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,729
Boy that Michel is some kind of football player. Why they did not keep feeding him the ball on their last possession I will never understand. I was impressed with their line. They did not look that good against Florida. For about the umpteenth time, I saw a team that consistently underachieves relative to their talent. I really don't want to hear about "lack of depth" or MR left a bare cupboard. No, they have plenty of talent but as is usual with them it has been squandered.

I believe because they have such a "super star" at QB that regardless of situation they must allow him to throw .
 

alagold

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,521
Location
Huntsville,Al
Reading about the game from their side, I've seen some asking why they didn't run the ball more and others saying that calling the runs had become predictable and they should have passed more. I like having them in a state of not knowing whether they should scratch their watch or wind their butts.

More than one Georgia reporter said this was the best game their O line has played all year. I think they played with a little extra fire for Tech.

Did Ted sub a lot on the line during the game? The reason why I ask is that it occurred to me this morning that we played our best defense in the 4th quarter. We know from the other side the norm is when you have run on a defense all day it gets easier in the 4th quarter. They are both tired and discouraged. Yet we reached down for something extra when we had to have it.

it seems to me Gamble was even in on the last ugadrive after playing whole game it seems with 12! tackles--where is Kallon?
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
it seems to me Gamble was even in on the last ugadrive after playing whole game it seems with 12! tackles--where is Kallon?

It seems to me that our D has been at its most efficient when Kallon has played. He seemed to get good minutes versus vpi and uva but not georgie
 

alentrekin

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
876
Location
California
Told my brother and dad right before the 2nd and 8 pass that I hope they get stupid and throw the ball.

After a watch through, I wonder how formation dictates their plays. Many throws in shotgun, many runs under center. Eason looks a lot more comfortable roaming around in the gun than running 5/7 step or play action. He was not as good -- inaccurate on short range, didn't stand in the pocket -- as I had feared.

Michel and Chubb (and McKenzie and Herrien if you've seen him) are worth every recruiting star.
 

gtg147g

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
51
Anybody else notice that the INT pass play on 2nd & 8 was NOT the same play they were lined up to run before GT called a timeout??

Looked to me like trips right (short side of field) before the timeout, and then 2 receivers to field side after.

Thoughts?
 

Jerry the Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,889
Location
Chapin, SC
The reason they threw the ball late was that we had 9 men in the box. We had just stopped them for a 2 yard run and it was second and 8. They took a time out I believe and decided to run play action thinking they could get decent yardage on a simple short pass. The second coming, Eason, just threw a bad pass that the receiver could only reach back and tip. Fortunately one of our little defensive backs was able to garner it before it hit the ground.

We were selling out to stop the run and they felt they could stick it to us with a pass right there. It just back fired on them. That's football.

Go Jackets!

PS - Eason is not what they thought he would be. May not be the starting QB for that long. Not a complete bust but not even in the top half of SEC QB's.
 

danny daniel

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,491
Reading about the game from their side, I've seen some asking why they didn't run the ball more and others saying that calling the runs had become predictable and they should have passed more. I like having them in a state of not knowing whether they should scratch their watch or wind their butts.

More than one Georgia reporter said this was the best game their O line has played all year. I think they played with a little extra fire for Tech.

Did Ted sub a lot on the line during the game? The reason why I ask is that it occurred to me this morning that we played our best defense in the 4th quarter. We know from the other side the norm is when you have run on a defense all day it gets easier in the 4th quarter. They are both tired and discouraged. Yet we reached down for something extra when we had to have it.

Subbed a lot at DE, not so much at DT. Gamble probably went all the way. I was impressed (again) with the limited play of Branch who I believe will be a DT starter in 2017.
 

redmule

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
664
Mills and Marshall both looked like they had fresh legs in the 4th. So did the A backs. I think maybe our offensive depth had worn down uga's defensive depth. Sure looked that way on the last two drives. Never thought I would see that.
 
Top