Georgia’s offensive scheme: a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Seth Emerson hits on what’s puzzled me about Jim Chaney all season long:

[Georgia] has great runners in Chubb and Michel, but it doesn’t have the line, and it doesn’t have a quarterback comfortable enough running that system. I keep coming back to the Tennessee game, which Georgia needed to win to stay in the division race, and when – to quote myself in the Second Glance – “Jim Chaney finally adapted, scheming around the offensive line problems. He ran outside a lot, was creative, and used a lot of runs out of the shot-gun, which Eason is more comfortable running at this point.”

Since then, it’s been basically back to the usual. And while it worked against South Carolina, it didn’t the next two weeks. Why is that? Are Smart and/or Chaney committed to a certain style, and they’re hammering it into Eason and the team, assuming after the Tennessee loss that the division hopes were over, thus sacrificing the present for the future? That seems unlikely, but it’s hard to come up with another explanation, other than they (for some reason) think this is the best gameplan.

Occam’s Razor would seem to suggest such, given that Chaney, while no offensive genius, has shown at prior stops that he can be a competent college coordinator.

The offensive line is sub-par, but there’s enough talent on offense to scheme around that shortcoming, as major as it is, at least against defenses that aren’t top-flight.  What’s troublesome are the games where it appears the staff doesn’t even try to do so.