He’ll make a great coach one day.

This is as good a summary of Georgia’s offensive philosophy as you could ask for:

“You’ll see a hard-nosed, physical team. Including the offensive line from the receivers to the running backs,” Michel said. “Georgia is going to do what Georgia is always going to do: Run the football. And other people have to stop the run.”

Michel paused.

“ Also,” he said, “We’re going to throw the football too.”

Hell, maybe they should let Sony call plays.

Advertisements

46 Comments

Filed under Georgia Football

46 responses to “He’ll make a great coach one day.

  1. Sony and Nick would probably do a better job calling plays than the guy currently doing it.

    Like

    • dawgtired

      …but we always feel we can do better than the guy calling the plays…it comes with fandom-ship. Like Geico saving you 15% on car insurance…it’s what we do. 😉

      Like

      • I didn’t say I could, but for $900k (or whatever Jabba is getting paid), I could figure out that tossing the ball 8 yards behind the line of scrimmage to the smallest player on the team on 4th and 1 probably wasn’t the best option.

        Like

        • Brandon

          If Zach Cunningham didn’t make a hell of a play to get over there and stop it and I Mac broke it for a long game winning TD, would you still be saying that? Not arguing it was a good call by any means… but so many fans’ opinion on what’s a good play call and what is not a good play call is directly related to how well it was executed.

          Liked by 2 people

          • It was a terrible call for the situation. Just like the call on the goal line against Auburn in 2001 or on the goal line against USCe in 2014. You put the ball in the hands of your best player when the game is on the line. In all of those cases, the execution or lack thereof exacerbated the error in the play call.

            Like

            • D.N. Nation

              I’ll still support Bobo for that call in 2014. Cackalacky stacked the box with the entire defense, some of the offense, some guys from the student section, a cheerleader, a pretzel cart vendor, and Spurrier himself. Gurley, bless him, was going to have to shake off about 9 people right after getting the ball.

              Rolling Hutson out was a clever move. That Hutson botched, alas.

              Like

              • Biggus Rickus

                I don’t even think Mason botched it. A guy blew it up, and he tried to ground the ball at the feet of the receiver to save the yards. Unfortunately, it hit the defender, and the refs blew the call.

                Like

                • Macallanlover

                  Exactly the way I remember it. There is no grounding on a ball which hits a defender. Have you ever seen another grounding call inside the ten yard line? I know I haven’t, and that shouldn’t have been one either. And, that play had worked earlier in the game and we all thought it was a great call. They had seen something in the SC scouting report. Once again everyone is judging the results of one play, not the way the game/season was called.

                  Like

              • 2nd down? Yes. 1st down? No.

                Like

            • You’re right on all three counts.

              You can’t run it with no TO’s at the goal line like that. Ironically, we won on the same sort of brain fart by them down there in 1992.

              Why you would ever have Hutson one on one with USCe’s edge defender is malpractice. It wasn’t the play call, it was the match up. Hutson shouldn’t be on a run/pass option vs. an unblocked DE/OLB ever. Too slow. That play should not have been on the play sheet.

              As bad as pitching it to 16 was, having 27 lead block was just as bad. The defense will key on 27 AND he’s not well versed in lead blocking. I tend to think our full time FB’s would have been looking for the LB scraping down the line.

              Every OC has brain farts. One of the worst two I’ve seen were Shanahan in the Super Bowl this past year and Laner vs. OSU a couple of years ago.

              If the Falcons run it three times and kick it after one of the great catches in SB history they are champs.

              If Lane doesn’t go up top on first down to OJ Howard leading to a pick, they win that game. Alabama was about to grab that game and he pissed it away.

              Bottom line, it happens to the best of them. We only notice when they don’t work and you lose. Sometimes really dumb decisions work. Les Miles made millions off of them.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Uglydawg

                And who can forget “Fouth and Dumb” by Pat Dye? And the fiasco against GT after Jasper Sanks didn’t fumble?

                Like

          • HVL Dawg

            What if the play before that went for a TD? Or maybe even the 2nd down play? Hey what if the 1st down play broke for a TD?

            None of them did. Vanderbilt beat UGA.

            Like

          • Macallanlover

            You are dead on that fans judge a play call solely by it’s results, all offensive play calls are potential TDs (with the exceptions of a kneel down, or a QB sneak on most occasions, That being said, certain play calls bring themselves in for more attacks because they have higher risks (fake punts, onside kicks, long passes on short yardage situations, etc.) Those same calls bring high praise when they work. The specific call against Vandy last year on our final drive wasn’t a horrible call but got much riskier after Vandy called a timeout after seeing Chubb in the FB position and IMac at TB. In retrospect, that alignment should definitely have been rethought as any element of surprise was lost.

            Like

          • 3rdandGrantham

            That’s sounds like typical logic from SCU fans after a loss — “if your guy didn’t make that freak catch we would have won,” or, “you better thank your lucky stars your olb broke that pass up, otherwise you’d be wallowing in your tears.” Stuff like that.

            Like

          • Biggus Rickus

            The thing is, Chubb and Michel are also capable of springing a long run if the play opens up. You gain nothing by trying to bust it with McKenzie, because what he can’t do is run through initial contact to pick up the yard you need to keep the chains moving if it breaks down.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Got Cowdog

            Cunningham made that play because the lead back missed the block. That being said, ZC reads the formation as the same play, does not commit to a gap, scoots down the line and basically hides from Chubb until he goes past, and deposits 165lbs of IMac right there at the line of scrimmage. Bonehead call by UGA, especially the second time, with both 1 and 27 available. Really good play on the sneak by Cunningham. Go watch it, it’s worth it even if it is painful.

            Like

        • 3rdandGrantham

          You know, I’ve been as critical of Cheney’s insanely unhealthy weight as anyone, but I’ve changed my tune in recent days. I now understand that Chaney is purposely overweight, and if not for coaching would be a svelte 180 lb with 9% bf.

          You see, he’s purposely fat so that the play chart can rest nicely on his bulging stomach, which puts it that much closer to his eyes to read quickly and often. Otherwise, he’d have to bend down or raise the chart with his arms up to his eyes, which takes precious time during the game.

          Hence, I salute him for his sacrifice, and much like a retiring NFL lineman who desires to be a TV analyst, I bet he drops 100+ lbs as soon as he hangs up the play chart for good.

          Like

          • Macallanlover

            The obsession about weight is getting tiring, you have made your point about your opinion of Chaney’s physique more than enough times. Perhaps you are health freak and drink carrot juice and eat roots everyday, but most of us are more concerned about how he handles the controls of our offense. Doesn’t mean I feel he projects the best image for an athletic program but his appearance is a long way from making my Top 10 about changes I want to see from him in 2017.

            Like

            • 3rdandGrantham

              Dude, I was clearly making a joke in response to someone else being critical of his weight. Big big difference.

              Like

              • Funny how fat jokes get frowned upon here. I see other things get a pass. I wonder what the correlation is? Hmmmmm……

                Like

              • Macallanlover

                You are full of shit, even I can recall multiple posts going back over a year where you have ridiculed him over his weight. I won’t waste my time looking it up but my memory is a solid majority of your comments regarding Chaney mention weight. Hey, that may be your hangup, it’s OK but don’t deny what you have expressed several (maybe dozens) times. I remember thinking last year how I wouldn’t want to be a child growing up in your house and being subjected to your weirdness about food/weight (just an opinion, and it is the first time I have expressed it…and I won’t again, it’s your right).

                Like

            • Red Cup

              Agree Mac. Part of the real problem in today’s society is that too many attack someone personally when they don’t agree with them on something. It is a valid point to say Chaney did not call a good game,etc, but to say he is ugly or fat is uncalled for. But 3rd has a perfect example to follow in 45, who routinely denigrates his detractors’ personal appearance.

              Like

        • PTC DAWG

          I’ll never believe that one call costs any one game….

          Like

          • That call assured us of the loss …

            Like

            • What about Bob

              While the call to give McKenzie the ball and Chubb to block on the play may have not been the best call, it was not the sole reason Georgia lost the game nor was it a play that assured the loss to Vandy.

              You can believe that all you want, but the real problem that day was Georgia’s o-line could not push a wet paper towel off the LOS. The Commodore defensive front stoned the Dogs up front all day long.

              That is the reason that Chaney called the play to I-Mac. He basically was having to try anything and everything to convert that 4th and 1 because there was no guarantee the o-line was going to be able to get enough of push that Chubb or Michel could pick it up.

              They had been getting hit at the LOS or behind the LOS all day that Saturday.

              People complaining about Chaney’s 4th and 1 call are missing the entire reason why that call was made in the first place.

              Of course, if the call is an ISO to Nick Chubb with Payne out in front blocking, then people would have complained why they didn’t do a toss sweep to Sony. And if that happened and had not worked…

              Like

              • I get it … do you understand they knew exactly what play we were running? Mason had to laugh his @$$ off all the way back to Nashville after that. It was the wrong call at the wrong time, period.

                Like

                • What about Bob

                  I don’t think you get it, but you are entitled to your opinion, right or wrong. We’ll have to agree to disagree here.

                  Like

              • I think this analysis ignores a couple of things. One the call is a basic toss sweep. That 16 got it created no surprise that wouldn’t have been there had 27 been back there. Two, why have chubb in at FB?

                If the idea was that they would be thinking dive play, as soon as chubb went lateral to the LOS that ruse was over.

                I agree that we should have never been in that position by getting dominated at the point of attack by Vandy, but that’s where we were. I just firmly believe that 27 and a real FB moves the chains there. No way that LB takes chubb down short there. He may have hit him, but Chubb would have made the yard to gain for a 1st down.

                Like

          • They may be the dumbest grouping of words the history of written language.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. dawgman3000

    Its nice to hear, (or read) that. It would be better to see it.

    Like

  3. Jared S.

    Boy, do I love me some Nick Chubb and Sony Michel.

    I’m probably a little too excited about them returning for their senior seasons. After all, there was that article recently (and correctly) pointing out that senior running backs rarely have stellar seasons. But the truth is that I’m as excited for what they bring to the team in meetings, practices, weight rooms, huddles — all around leadership and example-setting from two men of evident class, character, and talent. I think it’s going to be huge. Especially for this monster 2017 class that just came in. I’m really excited that these freshmen get spend time around Nick and Sony.

    Like

    • Macallanlover

      Our five deep of Herrien, Holyfield, Swift, Michel, and Chubb should insure those senior backs will not have to save themselves for the pros and can play “all out” this season. I don’t think either are the type guys who would take plays off anyway….why come back to not prove their strength or versatility? They may not reach their career highs for this season but the YPC and catch should be very high in their senior season imo.

      Like

      • Jared S.

        I expect them to play “all out”, as you say. But for me Chaney and our O-line is still a huge question mark. I know Nick and Sony’s success will in large part depend on things totally out of their control. Well, maybe not totally. They could have another meeting with Chaney…..just hope they don’t wait until so far into the season before they say anything. =P

        Like

  4. Hillbilly Dawg

    Language classes in full force in Athens:
    FCOAS now offering coachspeak 1101. Classes at BM Building and the JPMIPF

    Like

  5. Russ

    And we’ll kick the football, too. And maybe through the uprights.

    Like

    • Macallanlover

      Another reason for my optimism in 2017, we have a kicker with a proven history of having a strong leg. Not only on kickoffs, but also means we can call plays differently when we are around the opponent’s 40 yard line knowing we have a option to kick a FG if the play fails.

      Like

  6. W Cobb Dawg

    I don’t really care if we rack up a lot of rushing yards. I don’t care if we’re hard-nosed or physical. I want scoring. The more, the better. Put the ball in the end zone.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. It has appeared to me ….for years that while most teams run to set up the pass we pass to set up the run……the point is if we can keep em guessing for even half a second we win.

    Like

  8. AusDawg85

    Can’t believe Kirby let Sony talk to the media and give away our playbook like that. Breakdown of The Process. Kirby has lost control. I blame Chaney.

    Like

  9. 69Dawg

    A big problem last year was one of our old standby pass the Play action pass was not going to happen enough for two reasons. Eason had never been under center and could not get used to having to acquire his targets after the fake. The other reason was that the way our Oline blocked Eason was tackled before he could turn around. We finally gave up and just put him in the shotgun where he felt more comfortable. The OC had 1/3 of his play book removed.

    On the Vandy play most sane OC’s would have use Sony at tailback if they were going to put Nick at fullback. Chaney has that “to cute” bug up his butt and needs to lose it. Also the offensive line should have blocked the LB coming down the line, if one of the big uglies had just bumped him the play would have worked.

    Like

  10. Uglydawg

    Every little or big thing the offense can do well bolsters the things is is a little deficient at…until the two things are enabling each other. Georgia is going to have an offense that you can’t cheat-up on. Getting Eason confident and comfortable will be key. The seniors, Chubb and Sony, will be a much calming factor for him. Also the tight ends. Once he realizes the effectiveness of his weaponry, things will open up. Let’s hope it’s early.

    Like