A few days ago, President Barack Obama gave a speech that could, possibly, maybe, (hopefully) signal a change of course for our nation. He spoke in Osawatomie, which is a town in Kansas, which is a state that should vote Democrat in every national election, but always votes Republican instead. If you haven't read or skimmed Thomas Frank's book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?," you should. In brief, it describes the irrationality of a state that continually votes for a party that champions intangible and unfulfilled social-religious issues all the while quietly executing economic policies adverse to the middle-class citizens that comprise a majority of Kansans. It asks a simple question: Why has Kansas allowed the Boogeyman to be scare it away from supporting the party that most supports it? Of course, the former is the GOP, and the latter is the Democratic Party. But enough to that.
Obama referenced Teddy Roosevelt often. You remember TR, don't you? One of the greatest Republican presidents in history, right? Well, here is something TR once said:
"The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows. That is what you fought for in the Civil War, and that is what we strive for now... We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.
This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary."
Obama has never even dared stick his little pinky toe out to the degree that TR demanded wealthy Americans make their own cause - for moral, ethical, and patriotic reasons. And current republicans call Obama a socialist! (Of course, anyone who calls Obama a socialist is a either a liar or a complete imbecile. During Obama's presidency, corporate profits have doubled, more than 500,000 government employees have been laid off, and he has ended two wars. For those still not understanding, that is the complete freaking opposite of socialism. Stop talking. Read a book. Speak when spoken to, and better yet, maybe not even then. Better for others to suspect that you are a moron, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.)
Now, to my point.
Obama spoke about the gross economic inequality that has come to define our citizens' well-being first, the future of our nation second, and the state of our politics third. His speech marks an important point in our nation's trajectory. Presidents don't give speeches for no reason, and especially so on the eve of an election year. By making a major speech on economic inequality, Obama signaled his intentions to campaign for reelection on a platform that endeavors to implement policies that create a tide that raises all boats. In contrast, for two months the GOP supported Herman Cain, a man that told the poor and disadvantaged that they have no one to blame but themselves. This in the age of corporate profits numbering in the billions while unemployment pushes 10%, when unemployment benefits and education spending is being slashed-and-burned like an amazon forest, when the 1% control the pursestrings of Congress, and the 99% vote for no reason.
And that is what I want to talk about. I've written often about the economic inequality that has spread like wildfire over the past 30 years. Middle class income has stagnated, lower class income has decreased, wealth has been localized in the top 5%. At no point since WWII has the top 5% held more wealth more than it does now, and that divergence expands every year, every month, every day. Yes, we live in a land of Armani-suit-wearing robber barons. But I want to take you a step further.
As I see it, while our economic inequality is reason enough to tear down the system and rebuild it anew, economic inequality is not the worse crime. No, the greater crime against this nation is the destruction of opportunity. Opportunity inequality is what infuriates me the most. That is what this is really about.
I am a Christian, a progressive, a realist, a hard worker, a pragmatist, an independent person, and a liberal. I don't believe in a hand-out, but I do believe in a hand-up. I am perfectly fine with not achieving the earning power of others, even if some of them did less than me to earn it, and only benefitted from a better starting point in society. As a realist, I accept that without argument.
But what I do object to is the lack of opportunity that I sometimes feel, and millions of other Americans know to be a cold hard fact. They myth of America encapsulated many things, but one of the most enduring was the promise of unbridled opportunity.
They story went like this, "Here is where you can do whatever you want. Here, hard work and persistence is all that is required. Here, you can make all your dreams come true."
Make no mistake. This type of thinking wasn't created in some Walt Disney studio. Historians across generations have reaffirmed American exceptionalism.
We can save Europe. Twice.
We can overcome discrimination of gender and race.
We can elect a dirt farmer from Georgia for president.
We can have a high school dropout and two college dropouts start the personal computer revolution.
We can elect an actor from California for president.
We can create a robust middle class, for which a home, a family car, and college educations for our children do not push us to the verge of insolvency.
We can have another college dropout ignite the flame that spread social media to every corner of the world. The revolutionaries in Egypt used Twitter and Facebook to communicate. What started as a simple, online-social-experience ultimately helped brave men and women topple a tyrant.
These are the things we are capable of.
But now, for the first time since FDR told us that there is nothing to fear but fear itself, this American exceptionalism, this Land or Opportunity is decidedly a myth. No longer does simple hard work, persistence, and kindness to others, guarantee life worthy of the blood and sweat that was offered as payment.
I am twisted up into a knot by such a reality. But I cannot ignore it, because I am a realist.
I see that the obstacles between where people like me are, and where we want to be, are taller than they have been in 80 years.
Such unchecked Difficulties are the knives at Opportunity's side.
The recognition of these obstacles is incompatible with the American Dream.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Who Will Reign Supreme in 2011: Review A
Welcome back to best college football blog that no one knows about! It's the last week of September, and that means a few things. For most of the country, Fall has returned. ALL OF YOU CAN GO TO HELL!!! It was 92 degrees in Tallahassee today, and my personal rebellion of wearing jeans because that's-what-I should-be able-to-do has done nothing to bring about cooler temperatures, and has most likely contributed to a few unfortunate, less-than-adequate deodorant days. It also means most teams have played four games, and at least one being against a conference opponent, which means we have a legitimate sample size to review how my predictions are holding up. Away we go ...
1. Alabama (Conference Champion)
-- No issues here. Currently #2 in both polls, and all appears to be well in Tuscaloosa. The defense - specifically, the secondary and linebackers - is scarier that The Blair Witch Project for opposing offenses. A solid win over Arkansas, albeit at home, confirms that this Bama team is as advertised, i.e. a favorite to win the National Championship.
2. Oklahoma (Conference Champion)
-- The preseason #1 finds itself at #3 this week, and largely through no fault of its own. The Sooners beat then #5 FSU in Tallahassee, which stands as the only win against a top 5 team this season. But that win was mitigated by the early departure of EJ Manuel, and the fact that FSU still took the game to the wire. While it may have mostly been a case of a talented, resilient FSU team that refused to go quietly into the night, Oklahoma has dropped to #3 in large part due to the dominance of LSU and Alabama. CAVEAT: the last time a preseason #1 got demoted early on without losing a game was Georgia in 2009. And while Oklahoma is in much better physical shape than that injury-riddled Georgia team that ultimately finished with 3 loses, there are still similarities. The most important being this -- no one is saying Oklahoma isn't a very good team, but people are pretty sure there are two teams that are clearly better.
3. FSU (Conference Champion)
-- The phrase "snake bitten" comes to mind. We'll never know if FSU would have beaten Oklahoma had EJ Manuel not been knocked out of the game with a shoulder injury, but the Seminoles, with a RS Freshman QB playing in his first college football game, forced Oklahoma to win the game. FSU then caught a hot and supremely confident Clemson team in Death Valley, fresh off snapping Auburn's 17 game winning streak. And still, FSU took it to the final snap, only losing by 5. The heart of this young team is clear, and these trials of adversity will pay dividends later down the road. But the loss of Manuel, FSU's quarterback and recognized team leader, cannot be overstated.
4. LSU
-- It's Les Miles crazy dream, and we're just living in it. LSU currently sits atop the mountain, and rightly so. The Tigers have beaten 3 ranked teams in resounding fashion, all in the FIRST FOUR GAMES OF THE SEASON. The defense is poetry in motion, a wild spirit of precision and destruction that can only be observed, never tamed. But many words have been written about LSU's defensive prowess. Instead, I'll direct you to my original Top 10 prediction post (which had LSU at #1) and then my revision (which had LSU at #4). I dropped the Tigers SOLELY because Miles had made the incredulous decision to stick with Jordan Jefferson at QB, something I simply didn't expect. But outside forces did Miles a favor when Jefferson was arrested for allegedly kicking a man outside of a bar. That is not meant to lessen the seriousness of Jefferson's current situation, or to poke fun at it. It is simply to recognize that the emergence of Jarrett Lee has represented a substantial improvement at QB, and questions at that position coming into this season is the ONLY reason why I didn't have LSU at #1.
5. Nebraska (Conference Champion)
-- An unknown quantity in this bunch, a team that hasn't faced a true test thus far. Nonetheless, the results up to this point have been a few degrees less than barn storming. Accordingly, Nebraska has crept up the rankings, and currently sits at #8. Wisconsin awaits in 6 days time.
6. Oregon (Conference Champion)
-- Despite being manhandled by LSU to the tune of 40-27 on a neutral site, the Ducks fell too far down in the polls. They've made it back to #9 on the strength of a few Oregon-like offensive explosions against PAC 12 foes. Considering the state of chaos in the PAC 12, and Stanford's recent rash of devastating injuries, a conference championship and top 8 finish is still very much in the cards for the Ducks.
7. Virginia Tech
-- See, Nebraska. We'll know more after Clemson leaves Blacksburg.
8. Notre Dame
-- Strike one! Big swing and miss here. I admit it. It isn't an important question for the purposes of this particular discussion, but I must ask it: is Notre Dame simply a work in progress, was Brian Kelly oversold, or has Notre Dame - as a football institution - fallen too far behind the times?
9. Boise St. (Conference Champion)
-- The Broncos currently sit at #4, and Peterson's and Moore's stock has never been higher. I admit it, I initially slated Boise at #9 because I thought my Dawgs would beat the Broncos in week 1. My heart talked louder than my head. So I will make amends. The Broncos will go undefeated this year, and they'll finish top 4 at the very worst.
10. Texas A&M
-- I couldn't really decide between A&M, Oklahoma St, Wisconsin, and South Carolina as to who should slide into the final spot in my Top 10. I thought each of the four were due for a minimum of two loses, and I believed that A&M wouldn't lose against bad teams and wound manage to beat some very good ones, meaning they would finish at #10. They very well may still land at #10. The Aggies lost to a very good, and a very emotional Oklahoma St team. We'll just have to wait and see.
OVERSIGHTS, NEVER APOLOGIES
Wisconsin -- Even with Russell Wilson, the Badgers are not in the realm of the LSU's, Alabama's, and Oklahoma's. But I must admit that I underestimated the impact a gifted and mature player like Wilson would have on a team that lost very little from last year, and was probably held back by quarterback play in the grand scheme of things. I still don't think Wisconsin is a top 5 team, but they haven't had the chance to prove me wrong yet. But they do deserve a spot in the top 10, and I was wrong to exclude them.
Oklahoma St -- I really can't be faulted much for this, considering that people who get paid big money to predict these things also didn't find the Cowboys deserving of uncontested top 10 consideration. There were simply too many question marks. How would the offense perform without Holgorsen, and with an OC who was taught the offense by the quarterback? How could a team with a perennial mediocre defense manage to keep up with Oklahoma and A&M, teams with equally prolific offenses and supposedly superior defenses? Well, the Cowboys have answered a few of those questions in impressive fashion.
And I'll even go a step further. OK St doesn't face Oklahoma until December 3rd, but the game is in Stillwater, and if it they played this weekend instead, I'd take the Cowboys. Maybe OK St was just playing inspired ball this past Saturday, but I saw a defense good enough to slow down Landry and Co., and I think the Cowboys are more explosion on offense.
The ebbs and flows of a season can change the complexion of a game, while not always more so, but in a different way than simple X's and O's. No one knows what the Bedlam matchup will mean for these two teams, but it very well could mean an undefeated season and potential National Championship game for the Cowboys. And I'm not alone in failing to foresee that scenario for the Fighting Gundy's.
1. Alabama (Conference Champion)
-- No issues here. Currently #2 in both polls, and all appears to be well in Tuscaloosa. The defense - specifically, the secondary and linebackers - is scarier that The Blair Witch Project for opposing offenses. A solid win over Arkansas, albeit at home, confirms that this Bama team is as advertised, i.e. a favorite to win the National Championship.
2. Oklahoma (Conference Champion)
-- The preseason #1 finds itself at #3 this week, and largely through no fault of its own. The Sooners beat then #5 FSU in Tallahassee, which stands as the only win against a top 5 team this season. But that win was mitigated by the early departure of EJ Manuel, and the fact that FSU still took the game to the wire. While it may have mostly been a case of a talented, resilient FSU team that refused to go quietly into the night, Oklahoma has dropped to #3 in large part due to the dominance of LSU and Alabama. CAVEAT: the last time a preseason #1 got demoted early on without losing a game was Georgia in 2009. And while Oklahoma is in much better physical shape than that injury-riddled Georgia team that ultimately finished with 3 loses, there are still similarities. The most important being this -- no one is saying Oklahoma isn't a very good team, but people are pretty sure there are two teams that are clearly better.
3. FSU (Conference Champion)
-- The phrase "snake bitten" comes to mind. We'll never know if FSU would have beaten Oklahoma had EJ Manuel not been knocked out of the game with a shoulder injury, but the Seminoles, with a RS Freshman QB playing in his first college football game, forced Oklahoma to win the game. FSU then caught a hot and supremely confident Clemson team in Death Valley, fresh off snapping Auburn's 17 game winning streak. And still, FSU took it to the final snap, only losing by 5. The heart of this young team is clear, and these trials of adversity will pay dividends later down the road. But the loss of Manuel, FSU's quarterback and recognized team leader, cannot be overstated.
4. LSU
-- It's Les Miles crazy dream, and we're just living in it. LSU currently sits atop the mountain, and rightly so. The Tigers have beaten 3 ranked teams in resounding fashion, all in the FIRST FOUR GAMES OF THE SEASON. The defense is poetry in motion, a wild spirit of precision and destruction that can only be observed, never tamed. But many words have been written about LSU's defensive prowess. Instead, I'll direct you to my original Top 10 prediction post (which had LSU at #1) and then my revision (which had LSU at #4). I dropped the Tigers SOLELY because Miles had made the incredulous decision to stick with Jordan Jefferson at QB, something I simply didn't expect. But outside forces did Miles a favor when Jefferson was arrested for allegedly kicking a man outside of a bar. That is not meant to lessen the seriousness of Jefferson's current situation, or to poke fun at it. It is simply to recognize that the emergence of Jarrett Lee has represented a substantial improvement at QB, and questions at that position coming into this season is the ONLY reason why I didn't have LSU at #1.
5. Nebraska (Conference Champion)
-- An unknown quantity in this bunch, a team that hasn't faced a true test thus far. Nonetheless, the results up to this point have been a few degrees less than barn storming. Accordingly, Nebraska has crept up the rankings, and currently sits at #8. Wisconsin awaits in 6 days time.
6. Oregon (Conference Champion)
-- Despite being manhandled by LSU to the tune of 40-27 on a neutral site, the Ducks fell too far down in the polls. They've made it back to #9 on the strength of a few Oregon-like offensive explosions against PAC 12 foes. Considering the state of chaos in the PAC 12, and Stanford's recent rash of devastating injuries, a conference championship and top 8 finish is still very much in the cards for the Ducks.
7. Virginia Tech
-- See, Nebraska. We'll know more after Clemson leaves Blacksburg.
8. Notre Dame
-- Strike one! Big swing and miss here. I admit it. It isn't an important question for the purposes of this particular discussion, but I must ask it: is Notre Dame simply a work in progress, was Brian Kelly oversold, or has Notre Dame - as a football institution - fallen too far behind the times?
9. Boise St. (Conference Champion)
-- The Broncos currently sit at #4, and Peterson's and Moore's stock has never been higher. I admit it, I initially slated Boise at #9 because I thought my Dawgs would beat the Broncos in week 1. My heart talked louder than my head. So I will make amends. The Broncos will go undefeated this year, and they'll finish top 4 at the very worst.
10. Texas A&M
-- I couldn't really decide between A&M, Oklahoma St, Wisconsin, and South Carolina as to who should slide into the final spot in my Top 10. I thought each of the four were due for a minimum of two loses, and I believed that A&M wouldn't lose against bad teams and wound manage to beat some very good ones, meaning they would finish at #10. They very well may still land at #10. The Aggies lost to a very good, and a very emotional Oklahoma St team. We'll just have to wait and see.
OVERSIGHTS, NEVER APOLOGIES
Wisconsin -- Even with Russell Wilson, the Badgers are not in the realm of the LSU's, Alabama's, and Oklahoma's. But I must admit that I underestimated the impact a gifted and mature player like Wilson would have on a team that lost very little from last year, and was probably held back by quarterback play in the grand scheme of things. I still don't think Wisconsin is a top 5 team, but they haven't had the chance to prove me wrong yet. But they do deserve a spot in the top 10, and I was wrong to exclude them.
Oklahoma St -- I really can't be faulted much for this, considering that people who get paid big money to predict these things also didn't find the Cowboys deserving of uncontested top 10 consideration. There were simply too many question marks. How would the offense perform without Holgorsen, and with an OC who was taught the offense by the quarterback? How could a team with a perennial mediocre defense manage to keep up with Oklahoma and A&M, teams with equally prolific offenses and supposedly superior defenses? Well, the Cowboys have answered a few of those questions in impressive fashion.
And I'll even go a step further. OK St doesn't face Oklahoma until December 3rd, but the game is in Stillwater, and if it they played this weekend instead, I'd take the Cowboys. Maybe OK St was just playing inspired ball this past Saturday, but I saw a defense good enough to slow down Landry and Co., and I think the Cowboys are more explosion on offense.
The ebbs and flows of a season can change the complexion of a game, while not always more so, but in a different way than simple X's and O's. No one knows what the Bedlam matchup will mean for these two teams, but it very well could mean an undefeated season and potential National Championship game for the Cowboys. And I'm not alone in failing to foresee that scenario for the Fighting Gundy's.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Georgia - South Carolina: 5 Thoughts
The woman and I made the trek up to the Classic City this past weekend for the game, so all of you were deprived of my "5 Thoughts" that usually come to you via Twitter. Fear not, loyal followers. Here they are ...
1) Let's start with what I liked, shall we? Under CTG, the defense had their best game yet. In my opinion, our D-line was the best unit in the trenches for the majority of the game, either side considered. Geathers and Jenkins consistently clogged the middle, and occasionally created pressure in the backfield. Lattimore ripped off a few big runs in the 4th, but I attribute those mostly to his exceptional talent. The DBs played well, but took poor position on a few key conversions. The LB core played really well considering Tree wasn't there. More on that latter.
2) As far as the offensive gameplan and play calling goes, it was the tale of two games. The first half was classic Bobo - conservative, predictable, oblivious to our playmakers and what Carolina's defense was giving us. In other words, 13 points when it should've been 17 or maybe even 21. The second half was a welcome blast from the past. We called some quick hits across the middle, exposing their vulnerable linebackers. We lined up in power sets and had success. We lined up in power sets but ran toss sweeps or counters. We got the ball to our young playmakers: Crowell and Mitchell.
3) Crowell, Mitchell, and J. Jones. One word - wow. Instead of replaying some of their best plays, because I know you saw them, I'll just drool. Crowell, simply put, is as advertised. Mitchell isn't the freak talent that was AJ Green, but he's just as dangerous, albeit in a different way. He's quicker, and clearly has an innate feel for the game. Jones means as much for our 3-4 as Geathers and Jenkins do. His sideline-to-sideline speed is something we haven't seen in a Georgia LB for a while. And unlike Justin Houston, he doesn't seem to take plays off. These three are gems.
And now, you knew it was coming, the things that bothered me.
4) In his second year, Aaron Murray is playing like he probably should have in his first. Don't get me wrong. Murray is a wonderful talent, and he appears to possess the ability to let a mistake go instead of allowing it to stain the rest of his game. He made some great throws, and often made plays with his feet. But the mistakes are hard to look past. The Clowney sack-fumble, and the fumbled handoff to Crowell are too easy to point out. However, those are easily corrected. What bothered me most was what he did for most of the game, and what was made quite obvious on the pick 6 -- Murray was staring down receivers all game long. I'm not quite sure whether this should truly bother me, if I should just chalk it up to a true sophomore gradually learning to be a better QB, or if it is simply a product of him running for his life for one and a half years which would make any of us want to get the ball off to the 1st option every play. Either way, it's indisputable that we've witnessed some growing pains in the past two games.
5) We are now 6-9 over our last 15 games. That's a powerful stat. But this one is downright shocking: we are 1-9 against ranked teams in the last 10 games. In other words, we are Ole Miss. There has long been a place for mediocre SEC teams that feast on the DII's and Vanderbilt's, and in turn are eaten by the elite SEC programs. We have officially taken up residence in this place.
Not too long ago, I ignored the relative success of our 9 or 8 win seasons by harping on our lack of a mean streak, our mental and physical weakness in the 4th quarter. Now it seems that many Georgia fans wish to ignore our abysmal record, and instead find encouragement in our progress and young talent. In moments here and there, I have been one of those fans.
But I have finally realized the logical fallacy in both arguments when held against each other.
Look only at the bright side, and we should have been a top 15 team last year and a top 15 now. We are not that team.
Look at both sides mixed in together, and we're a solid top 25 team; a few games we shouldn't have lost, a few games probably shouldn't have won, but an altogether above average team in both record and aesthetics. We aren't that team either.
But if, instead, you look at the criticisms, we are a team that hasn't beaten a good team in 3 years, a team cites injuries as an excuse twice too often, a team that has come to define the perennial underachiever. We are that team.
After 2009, I jumped off the CMR bandwagon for the first time. Since then, I have been coaxed back on, jumped off, and then been coaxed back on again. No more. My small knowledge of what it takes to be successful in college football and short time on this earth aside, I know enough to call a bluff when I see one. CMR is a damn good coach. It would be senseless to argue otherwise. But in the past 7 years, he has let one of Georgia's best DC's slip away, replaced him with ill-equiped college buddy, waited until the last minute to remove said ill-equiped friend, relinquished offensive duties to another ill-equiped friend, all the while largely ignoring more talented coaches either through blissful ignorance or blind loyalty.
The greatest indictment against Richt is not that he has lost his touch recruiting players or coaching football, it is that he has completely failed at evaluating and hiring talented coaches and coordinators, or worse, naively believed that he didn't have to, believed that the rules of the game somehow didn't apply to him. In other words, as a head coach - the CEO of the program - he has displayed an inexcusable inability to put his team in a position to be successful.
It should come as no surprise that success has been hard to find in Athens these past few years.
1) Let's start with what I liked, shall we? Under CTG, the defense had their best game yet. In my opinion, our D-line was the best unit in the trenches for the majority of the game, either side considered. Geathers and Jenkins consistently clogged the middle, and occasionally created pressure in the backfield. Lattimore ripped off a few big runs in the 4th, but I attribute those mostly to his exceptional talent. The DBs played well, but took poor position on a few key conversions. The LB core played really well considering Tree wasn't there. More on that latter.
2) As far as the offensive gameplan and play calling goes, it was the tale of two games. The first half was classic Bobo - conservative, predictable, oblivious to our playmakers and what Carolina's defense was giving us. In other words, 13 points when it should've been 17 or maybe even 21. The second half was a welcome blast from the past. We called some quick hits across the middle, exposing their vulnerable linebackers. We lined up in power sets and had success. We lined up in power sets but ran toss sweeps or counters. We got the ball to our young playmakers: Crowell and Mitchell.
3) Crowell, Mitchell, and J. Jones. One word - wow. Instead of replaying some of their best plays, because I know you saw them, I'll just drool. Crowell, simply put, is as advertised. Mitchell isn't the freak talent that was AJ Green, but he's just as dangerous, albeit in a different way. He's quicker, and clearly has an innate feel for the game. Jones means as much for our 3-4 as Geathers and Jenkins do. His sideline-to-sideline speed is something we haven't seen in a Georgia LB for a while. And unlike Justin Houston, he doesn't seem to take plays off. These three are gems.
And now, you knew it was coming, the things that bothered me.
4) In his second year, Aaron Murray is playing like he probably should have in his first. Don't get me wrong. Murray is a wonderful talent, and he appears to possess the ability to let a mistake go instead of allowing it to stain the rest of his game. He made some great throws, and often made plays with his feet. But the mistakes are hard to look past. The Clowney sack-fumble, and the fumbled handoff to Crowell are too easy to point out. However, those are easily corrected. What bothered me most was what he did for most of the game, and what was made quite obvious on the pick 6 -- Murray was staring down receivers all game long. I'm not quite sure whether this should truly bother me, if I should just chalk it up to a true sophomore gradually learning to be a better QB, or if it is simply a product of him running for his life for one and a half years which would make any of us want to get the ball off to the 1st option every play. Either way, it's indisputable that we've witnessed some growing pains in the past two games.
5) We are now 6-9 over our last 15 games. That's a powerful stat. But this one is downright shocking: we are 1-9 against ranked teams in the last 10 games. In other words, we are Ole Miss. There has long been a place for mediocre SEC teams that feast on the DII's and Vanderbilt's, and in turn are eaten by the elite SEC programs. We have officially taken up residence in this place.
Not too long ago, I ignored the relative success of our 9 or 8 win seasons by harping on our lack of a mean streak, our mental and physical weakness in the 4th quarter. Now it seems that many Georgia fans wish to ignore our abysmal record, and instead find encouragement in our progress and young talent. In moments here and there, I have been one of those fans.
But I have finally realized the logical fallacy in both arguments when held against each other.
Look only at the bright side, and we should have been a top 15 team last year and a top 15 now. We are not that team.
Look at both sides mixed in together, and we're a solid top 25 team; a few games we shouldn't have lost, a few games probably shouldn't have won, but an altogether above average team in both record and aesthetics. We aren't that team either.
But if, instead, you look at the criticisms, we are a team that hasn't beaten a good team in 3 years, a team cites injuries as an excuse twice too often, a team that has come to define the perennial underachiever. We are that team.
After 2009, I jumped off the CMR bandwagon for the first time. Since then, I have been coaxed back on, jumped off, and then been coaxed back on again. No more. My small knowledge of what it takes to be successful in college football and short time on this earth aside, I know enough to call a bluff when I see one. CMR is a damn good coach. It would be senseless to argue otherwise. But in the past 7 years, he has let one of Georgia's best DC's slip away, replaced him with ill-equiped college buddy, waited until the last minute to remove said ill-equiped friend, relinquished offensive duties to another ill-equiped friend, all the while largely ignoring more talented coaches either through blissful ignorance or blind loyalty.
The greatest indictment against Richt is not that he has lost his touch recruiting players or coaching football, it is that he has completely failed at evaluating and hiring talented coaches and coordinators, or worse, naively believed that he didn't have to, believed that the rules of the game somehow didn't apply to him. In other words, as a head coach - the CEO of the program - he has displayed an inexcusable inability to put his team in a position to be successful.
It should come as no surprise that success has been hard to find in Athens these past few years.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
10 Years Ago
If you follow my Twitter account - and I know you do! - the link I posted to Tom Junod's article for Esquire must still be careening off the sharp edges inside your brain. It sure is in mine. If you're missing the link, here it is: http://tinyurl.com/2fgmwe
Junod's article is arresting. I've tried to think of other words, maybe a string of them, to describe what his words did to me some seven years after he wrote them, and I kept coming back to that word -- arresting. The story he told, told painfully through the frames and lives of others, took custody of my idle thoughts for a good two days. If you haven't read the article, read it. If you have read it, read it again. I've read it three times already.
But unlike Junod, I am not a journalist, and while his words were chosen from a certain time and space, mine come from a generational plane, and cannot help but look forward because I do.
I've written and talked a lot about the ways 9/11 impacted, influenced, and shaped my generation - the Millennials. And I've often thought that the impressions that indescribable day left will not truly become visible until my generation grows into full adulthood and fills the various positions of power. For the past decade, people of stature and voice have reconstructed the world based on their reaction to 9/11. But a reaction is one thing, a childhood is another. While our recent past and now current leaders have certainly been changed by 9/11, it is just that -- a change. They reevaluated, recalculated, and re-imagined the world, all done upon the foundation of a construction and experience absent of the solvent that was September 11, 2001. That starting point is miles apart from the experience that is solely the tale my generation. Instead, my generation did not react to 9/11. My generation is, first, a product of that day, marked by the confusion and uncertainty of a unforeseen twist in an otherwise predictable story. And we are, second, the answer and explanation, the coming-of-age tale that marks, where those that came before us couldn't, the break in the narrative. We aren't Chapter 2. We are a completely separate book.
While I fully supported Barack Obama in 2008, I chafed at how the media cast the support he received from the youth, i.e. Us. The messages of "hope" and "change" were certainly borne is his own mind and vision, but the enthusiasm with which those ideas were met by the young was cast, by the media, as simple youthful exuberance.
We were miscast.
Simple youthful exuberance is not novel to any generation. We all remember those moments of availability and the romance of what is possible. But "hope" and "change" have too often been cheapened, and at times it becomes easy to miss the jarring significance of what those words really mean. For my generation, Obama was not a sunny afternoon dream. This much should have been apparent to many of the older, observant commentators. After all, the youth vote is famously underwhelming.
Instead of rainbows and butterflies, what Obama meant to us was a chance to soothe the scar tissue, an opportunity to rise above - while never forgetting - the smoke and ash that defined the terms in our life's dictionary.
We Millennials have been called "Confident, Connected, Open to Change." We've also been called whiny, weak, and lazy.
We are neither.
While it may be difficult to describe us, we are no different than other indescribable things. In other words, we are defined by what we are not. And what we are not is this -- we are not like the rest of all the human beings currently inhabiting western liberal democracies because they have never lived through a moment, a day, a history like 9/11 in the way that we did - in the midst of the most transformative period of our lives.
For everyone else, 9/11 happened, and they changed.
For us, 9/11 happened.
We are the primer. Whenever you turn on the TV, or open your newspaper, you will hear or read about the new rules of the world, about how things are different than they were before, and why the view of the world should be this way, or that.
Remember that they aren't really talking about an idea or a strategy.
They're talking about us.
Junod's article is arresting. I've tried to think of other words, maybe a string of them, to describe what his words did to me some seven years after he wrote them, and I kept coming back to that word -- arresting. The story he told, told painfully through the frames and lives of others, took custody of my idle thoughts for a good two days. If you haven't read the article, read it. If you have read it, read it again. I've read it three times already.
But unlike Junod, I am not a journalist, and while his words were chosen from a certain time and space, mine come from a generational plane, and cannot help but look forward because I do.
I've written and talked a lot about the ways 9/11 impacted, influenced, and shaped my generation - the Millennials. And I've often thought that the impressions that indescribable day left will not truly become visible until my generation grows into full adulthood and fills the various positions of power. For the past decade, people of stature and voice have reconstructed the world based on their reaction to 9/11. But a reaction is one thing, a childhood is another. While our recent past and now current leaders have certainly been changed by 9/11, it is just that -- a change. They reevaluated, recalculated, and re-imagined the world, all done upon the foundation of a construction and experience absent of the solvent that was September 11, 2001. That starting point is miles apart from the experience that is solely the tale my generation. Instead, my generation did not react to 9/11. My generation is, first, a product of that day, marked by the confusion and uncertainty of a unforeseen twist in an otherwise predictable story. And we are, second, the answer and explanation, the coming-of-age tale that marks, where those that came before us couldn't, the break in the narrative. We aren't Chapter 2. We are a completely separate book.
While I fully supported Barack Obama in 2008, I chafed at how the media cast the support he received from the youth, i.e. Us. The messages of "hope" and "change" were certainly borne is his own mind and vision, but the enthusiasm with which those ideas were met by the young was cast, by the media, as simple youthful exuberance.
We were miscast.
Simple youthful exuberance is not novel to any generation. We all remember those moments of availability and the romance of what is possible. But "hope" and "change" have too often been cheapened, and at times it becomes easy to miss the jarring significance of what those words really mean. For my generation, Obama was not a sunny afternoon dream. This much should have been apparent to many of the older, observant commentators. After all, the youth vote is famously underwhelming.
Instead of rainbows and butterflies, what Obama meant to us was a chance to soothe the scar tissue, an opportunity to rise above - while never forgetting - the smoke and ash that defined the terms in our life's dictionary.
We Millennials have been called "Confident, Connected, Open to Change." We've also been called whiny, weak, and lazy.
We are neither.
While it may be difficult to describe us, we are no different than other indescribable things. In other words, we are defined by what we are not. And what we are not is this -- we are not like the rest of all the human beings currently inhabiting western liberal democracies because they have never lived through a moment, a day, a history like 9/11 in the way that we did - in the midst of the most transformative period of our lives.
For everyone else, 9/11 happened, and they changed.
For us, 9/11 happened.
We are the primer. Whenever you turn on the TV, or open your newspaper, you will hear or read about the new rules of the world, about how things are different than they were before, and why the view of the world should be this way, or that.
Remember that they aren't really talking about an idea or a strategy.
They're talking about us.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Who Will Reign Supreme in 2011: Updated
A few months ago, before spring ball, the summer, the arrival of highly touted freshmen, and the beginning of fall practices, I wrote a post titled "Who Will Reign Supreme in 2011" that started with Andy Staples's early preseason rankings and ended with my own predictions about what the final Top 10 rankings would look like heading into bowl season. A link to that post is here: http://highdraws.blogspot.com/2011/04/who-will-reign-supreme-in-2011.html
The reason, I thought, for giving my vision of the top 10 BEFORE the bowls are played was clear: the outcomes of the bowl games would change the rankings (ex. the loser of the national championship game would not stay at #2), thus distorting the layout of the bowl match-ups. I will do the same here. Therefore, the #1 and #2 teams should be understood as the participants in the national championship game. Good? Great!
Also aware of how lineups can change and stock can rise and fall in the months between spring and early fall, Staples has recently published his preseason rankings. As an AP voter and one of the college football writers whom I respect most, his rankings carry legitimacy. Here are his preseason top 25:
1. Oklahoma
2. Alabama
3. Oregon
4. LSU
5. Stanford
6. Texas A&M
7. Florida St.
8. South Carolina
9. Oklahoma St.
10. Boise St.
11. Wisconsin
12. Nebraska
13. Arkansas
14. Ohio St.
15. Michigan St.
16. TCU
17. Missouri
18. Auburn
19. Virginia Tech
20. West Virginia
21. Notre Dame
22. Mississippi St.
23. Arizona St.
24. Maryland
25. Utah
I won't get into much critiquing of Staples's rankings. It seems to me that for some he is trying to peer into the future (FSU, South Carolina, Auburn, Maryland) while others he is simply placing them somewhere close to where they finished last year (Stanford, Boise St, Notre Dame). I hope that is the explanation, because if his rankings are truly a snapshot of the best 25 teams in his mind, then his mind will soon be surprised.
In the interests of comparison, here are my previous top 10:
1. Oklahoma (Conference Champion)
2. LSU (Conference Champion)
3. FSU (Conference Champion)
4. Alabama
5. Ohio St. (Conference Champion)
6. Nebraska
7. Oregon (Conference Champion)
8. Texas A&M
9. Virginia Tech
10. Boise St. (Conference Champion)
I posted those rankings in early April. There have been developments for every college football team in the intervening months. Some have been as small as an injury to a starting lineman, and some have been as big as the resignation of a preeminent coach. It is suffice to say that things have changed since then.
My rankings will reflect these changes. Without further ado, the updated version of "Who Will Reign Supreme in 2011" ...
1. Alabama (Conference Champion)
2. Oklahoma (Conference Champion)
3. FSU (Conference Champion)
4. LSU
5. Nebraska (Conference Champion)
6. Oregon (Conference Champion)
7. Virginia Tech
8. Notre Dame
9. Boise St. (Conference Champion)
10. Texas A&M
Noticeably, I flipped Alabama and LSU. Three reasons:
1) I've warmed up to just how loaded Alabama is on defense. I'm very cold on their offense, but the defense could be better than the '09 version, and it was good enough to carry a less-than-great offense.
2) I thought LSU would give up on Jordan Jefferson by late summer, and hand over the reigns to Zack Mettenburger. They haven't, and it will cost them when they are forced to endure a season-long QB controversy as Jefferson continues to consternate.
3) I failed to adequately research LSU's schedule, and see how beastly it truly is. It will take an elite squad to emerge from that schedule unscathed. LSU will be very good, but not good enough to avoid dropping a game or two due simply to attrition.
Also, Ohio St. is OUT and Notre Dame is IN.
The reasons for the former are clear to anyone who has remotely followed college football over the past few months. The reasons for the latter are just as simple, though a bit more precarious: Notre Dame needs only to finish 10-2 or 11-1 and will always be guaranteed of a top 10 ranking. The Fighting Irish's resume could list victories against 6 high school teams, and the sports writers across the land would still lift them back to the top. Though Notre Dame doesn't play that weak of a schedule this year, it is still decidedly weak in comparison to the quality of athletes Notre Dame will run out onto the field each week, and a 10 win season is sure to follow.
And, many will notice that Arkansas still doesn't crack my Top 10. I was probably a little bold to leave them out of my original rankings, but the loss of Knile Davis to a season-ending injury will likely cost Arkansas a win somewhere. I just hesitate to place three SEC teams in the Top 10. This is not because I don't think there are three (if not four) SEC teams of that quality, but simply because most of them have to play each other and if Alabama and LSU are to finish in the top 5, that means that Arkansas will suffer two losses at a minimum. And the SEC has a knack for sticking good teams with at least one we-really-shouldn't-but-did losses each year.
Mark me down for predicting that if there is one other SEC team other than Bama and LSU that could finish near the Top 10, it is Georgia. The pieces are in place, and the schedule is ripe for a surprise run.
Continuing trends:
I'm bullish on FSU and Va Tech. The rest of the ACC is weak. When has Frank Beamer not finished with 10 wins, plus or minus a win? It's Year 2 for Jimbo Fisher. Year 2 was the breakout year for Meyer, Saban, and Chizik, and I look for Fisher to have similar results. Why? Because like Meyer and Saban (in their respective years of dominance), Fisher will send a team out onto the field that will be athletically superior to every squad it faces this year. That usually equals fantastic results if your coach isn't Ron Zook.
I'm bearish on Stanford and South Carolina. ATTN College football voters: Stanford a top 5 team? Really? South Carolina should be better than last year, but they have a tougher schedule and while I have great respect for Spurrier, the fact that Garcia is a ticking bomb and Lattimore showed a propensity for injury last year relegates me to viewing Carolina's prospects with skepticism. And even if South Carolina manages to go 10-2, they are almost assured to lose to either Alabama or LSU in the SEC championship.
So that is it, my prediction of what the top 10 will look like heading into bowl season.
And before I sign off, I'll answer the question I know you are screaming ...
Alabama beats Oklahoma in the BCS National Championship Game.
The reason, I thought, for giving my vision of the top 10 BEFORE the bowls are played was clear: the outcomes of the bowl games would change the rankings (ex. the loser of the national championship game would not stay at #2), thus distorting the layout of the bowl match-ups. I will do the same here. Therefore, the #1 and #2 teams should be understood as the participants in the national championship game. Good? Great!
Also aware of how lineups can change and stock can rise and fall in the months between spring and early fall, Staples has recently published his preseason rankings. As an AP voter and one of the college football writers whom I respect most, his rankings carry legitimacy. Here are his preseason top 25:
1. Oklahoma
2. Alabama
3. Oregon
4. LSU
5. Stanford
6. Texas A&M
7. Florida St.
8. South Carolina
9. Oklahoma St.
10. Boise St.
11. Wisconsin
12. Nebraska
13. Arkansas
14. Ohio St.
15. Michigan St.
16. TCU
17. Missouri
18. Auburn
19. Virginia Tech
20. West Virginia
21. Notre Dame
22. Mississippi St.
23. Arizona St.
24. Maryland
25. Utah
I won't get into much critiquing of Staples's rankings. It seems to me that for some he is trying to peer into the future (FSU, South Carolina, Auburn, Maryland) while others he is simply placing them somewhere close to where they finished last year (Stanford, Boise St, Notre Dame). I hope that is the explanation, because if his rankings are truly a snapshot of the best 25 teams in his mind, then his mind will soon be surprised.
In the interests of comparison, here are my previous top 10:
1. Oklahoma (Conference Champion)
2. LSU (Conference Champion)
3. FSU (Conference Champion)
4. Alabama
5. Ohio St. (Conference Champion)
6. Nebraska
7. Oregon (Conference Champion)
8. Texas A&M
9. Virginia Tech
10. Boise St. (Conference Champion)
I posted those rankings in early April. There have been developments for every college football team in the intervening months. Some have been as small as an injury to a starting lineman, and some have been as big as the resignation of a preeminent coach. It is suffice to say that things have changed since then.
My rankings will reflect these changes. Without further ado, the updated version of "Who Will Reign Supreme in 2011" ...
1. Alabama (Conference Champion)
2. Oklahoma (Conference Champion)
3. FSU (Conference Champion)
4. LSU
5. Nebraska (Conference Champion)
6. Oregon (Conference Champion)
7. Virginia Tech
8. Notre Dame
9. Boise St. (Conference Champion)
10. Texas A&M
Noticeably, I flipped Alabama and LSU. Three reasons:
1) I've warmed up to just how loaded Alabama is on defense. I'm very cold on their offense, but the defense could be better than the '09 version, and it was good enough to carry a less-than-great offense.
2) I thought LSU would give up on Jordan Jefferson by late summer, and hand over the reigns to Zack Mettenburger. They haven't, and it will cost them when they are forced to endure a season-long QB controversy as Jefferson continues to consternate.
3) I failed to adequately research LSU's schedule, and see how beastly it truly is. It will take an elite squad to emerge from that schedule unscathed. LSU will be very good, but not good enough to avoid dropping a game or two due simply to attrition.
Also, Ohio St. is OUT and Notre Dame is IN.
The reasons for the former are clear to anyone who has remotely followed college football over the past few months. The reasons for the latter are just as simple, though a bit more precarious: Notre Dame needs only to finish 10-2 or 11-1 and will always be guaranteed of a top 10 ranking. The Fighting Irish's resume could list victories against 6 high school teams, and the sports writers across the land would still lift them back to the top. Though Notre Dame doesn't play that weak of a schedule this year, it is still decidedly weak in comparison to the quality of athletes Notre Dame will run out onto the field each week, and a 10 win season is sure to follow.
And, many will notice that Arkansas still doesn't crack my Top 10. I was probably a little bold to leave them out of my original rankings, but the loss of Knile Davis to a season-ending injury will likely cost Arkansas a win somewhere. I just hesitate to place three SEC teams in the Top 10. This is not because I don't think there are three (if not four) SEC teams of that quality, but simply because most of them have to play each other and if Alabama and LSU are to finish in the top 5, that means that Arkansas will suffer two losses at a minimum. And the SEC has a knack for sticking good teams with at least one we-really-shouldn't-but-did losses each year.
Mark me down for predicting that if there is one other SEC team other than Bama and LSU that could finish near the Top 10, it is Georgia. The pieces are in place, and the schedule is ripe for a surprise run.
Continuing trends:
I'm bullish on FSU and Va Tech. The rest of the ACC is weak. When has Frank Beamer not finished with 10 wins, plus or minus a win? It's Year 2 for Jimbo Fisher. Year 2 was the breakout year for Meyer, Saban, and Chizik, and I look for Fisher to have similar results. Why? Because like Meyer and Saban (in their respective years of dominance), Fisher will send a team out onto the field that will be athletically superior to every squad it faces this year. That usually equals fantastic results if your coach isn't Ron Zook.
I'm bearish on Stanford and South Carolina. ATTN College football voters: Stanford a top 5 team? Really? South Carolina should be better than last year, but they have a tougher schedule and while I have great respect for Spurrier, the fact that Garcia is a ticking bomb and Lattimore showed a propensity for injury last year relegates me to viewing Carolina's prospects with skepticism. And even if South Carolina manages to go 10-2, they are almost assured to lose to either Alabama or LSU in the SEC championship.
So that is it, my prediction of what the top 10 will look like heading into bowl season.
And before I sign off, I'll answer the question I know you are screaming ...
Alabama beats Oklahoma in the BCS National Championship Game.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Beyond Buyer Beware: 3 Reasons Why the Democratic Party is Better than the GOP, Including Being Better Conservatives
I'm beginning to suspect that a lot of Americans are beginning to regret the votes they cast last November. If you live in Florida, recent polls allow me to skip the suspicion, and jump right into full-fledged buyer's remorse (Public Advisory for Rick Scott: Don't look at your approval ratings, they'll give you high blood pressure).
Full disclosure: I am a Democrat. But before you stop reading, I'll make a concession. I understand, to some degree, the backlash and the reasons that many Americans voted for Republican candidates last year. I want to argue that the vitriol sparked by health care reform was largely a result of President Obama's complete and total failure to explain and sell not only the health care bill, but even the stimulus package a few months prior. However, despite the mistakes in effective messaging, Obama made a bigger mistake -- he opted to swing for the fences when a few base hits would have made everyone happier. I know why Obama went all-in for the health care bill instead of continuing to focus on reviving the economy and creating jobs. He emerged from the 2008 election with an enormous amount of political capital and then made the calculated, yet highly ambitious, decision to achieve once-and-for-all the great dream of the Democratic Party -- health care reform. I've read that Obama, early on in his presidency often said that he would rather be a one-term president who did "something" instead of a two-term president who did nothing. I commend him for that, and I think all Americans should as well. George W. Bush certainly choose the opposite path, but that is a story for another time.
Regardless, I must be said now that Obama should have swallowed his ambition and devoted his entire attention towards combatting the growing unemployment rate. Maybe he believed that the economy was turning around. Maybe he knew what the score was, and choose to get while the getting was good. We'll never know, but right now, it looks as if he put the horse before the cart.
With all of that said, and if you're still with me, I'll move on to the 3 reasons why the Democratic Party is better than the GOP ...
1) Democrats don't always choose the best fiscal policies, but Republicans don't understand fiscal policy at all.
The debt crisis was a grotesque abuse of representative power by the GOP, and especially the Teasies. The federal government has never been required to balance its budget, and hasn't done so in decades with the exclusion of the final years of Clinton's presidency. Likewise, the federal government has never been required to have no deficit, and has had one since Eisenhower's presidency.
Fiscal policy means that the federal government can borrow money, which means that its expenditures can exceed its revenues. While it may be true that our debt shouldn't grow exponentially, it is certainly true that we are not approaching insolvency because though the federal government is borrowing money, it is also loaning money at an equal or higher interest rate. In other words, the federal government is making more money off of the interest from its loans than it is paying on the interest for the money it is borrowing. In business school, that is called a profit. And in the real world, that is called China (and other foreign countries) buying Treasury bills hand over fist. You may ask, why would they do this if we are such a broken country? It's because we aren't. In fact, we're still the safest bet and the best investment on the planet.
Democrats understand that federal fiscal policy is entirely different from state fiscal policy and individual fiscal practices. Republicans think they're all the same.
Even if someone can't do a great job of describing a duck, I'd rather listen to that person instead of someone who thinks a duck is a goose.
2) If you elect people who hate government, you can't be surprised when they decide to run the government into the ground.
The current batch of Republicans must have skipped a lot of American history classes. They often call themselves the party of Lincoln and Reagan. Uncomfortably for them, and certainly unfortunate for those three great presidents, their historical allusions are off the mark.
Lincoln refused to let the Union fall apart. He presided over the bloodiest war in American history in the pursuit of the preservation of a government he knew and loved. He died because of his hope that the government he loved could become something better.
Reagan famously declared that government is not the solution to our problems, but instead government is the problem. The real problem with that statement is that Reagan clearly believed in government. During his eight years as president, he significantly grew the size of the federal government. Whether is was through increased taxes, a larger federal military defense, or a continuation - if not an enlargement - of the federal bureaucracy, Reagan clearly did not despise the government.
In clear opposition, current Republicans possess a healthy disgust for the government. If the notion of someone pursuing a position of power in something that he or she hates confuses you, don't scratch your head alone, because it confuses me too.
Even though I believe it is clear that Republicans hate the government (especially the Teasies), hate is too strong of a word for me, and so I won't venture a metaphor. Instead, I will simply ask you to imagine why anyone would ask people to do something that they hate, and then expect those people to do a good job.
3) Democrats are better conservatives than Republicans.
For that past twenty or so years, the so-called "welfare state" has been under perpetual attack from the Right. Republicans have fought tooth and nail to dismantle Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and welfare. And make no mistake -- Republicans haven't attempted to improve those essential domestic programs. No, instead they have attacked them on an institutional level, arguing that those programs, programs which provide a social safety net for individuals in need, are an anathema and a blood-sucking leech on this country.
Hubert Humphrey once said, "The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped."
If you accept, at least at its most fundamental level, Humphrey's statement, then the scorecard couldn't be more clear. Republicans are supposed to be the party of small government. If government is to serve any function, if government is to measure up to any bar, surely it is the standard described by Humphrey. If we are truly the most advanced and the wealthiest nation on this Earth, surely if we do one thing, we will take care of those among us who are in the dawn, the twilight, and the shadows of life. The Republicans, however, have fought to eradicate such humanity in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and subsidies for oil companies whose profit margins exceed that of many nations.
And instead, the Democratic Party has tolerated debates and succumbed to onslaughts against the most basic social systems. Through those debates and in response to those onslaughts, Democrats have shrunken welfare, have acquiesced to cuts in Medicare, and have offered honest changes to Social Security. Republicans are supposed to be the party of conservatism, but is has been the Democrats who have been willing to make concessions and find savings in places where savings are most sparse. In other words, one party has refused to be a part of any solution, and instead of returning a cold shoulder, the other party has decided to be the adult at the table chooses reason over bickering, compromise over bickering, and conservation over destruction.
American politics is often frustrating, unsatisfying, and ugly. I would argue that this is how our democracy was intended.
It is supposed to be hard to bring about large-scale change, and our constitution is constructed in such a way that resists the accumulation of power in a single group of people. The Bill of Rights has been the most copied framework among other democracies since the creation of our own, and those ten amendments function as an unabashed protector of the minority. The logic is pretty simple: the powerful have enough power, they don't need any more. It is the weak and the disenfranchised who must be watched over.
It was an ambitious and diverse group of individuals that gathered in those hot, small houses in Philadelphia some two hundred and odds years ago, and we are surely more so now. But I've learned to hesitate from offering a definite explanation of what was discussed and decided in those sweltering summer months in 1789. It is amazing what seems to get lost in translation.
I am sure of one thing, and it is that I have found a group of people who are both willing to govern and to compromise. But what we are unwilling to abide is the perpetuation of a lie, the con of a slick sell, the sleight of hand which allows apathy and naiveté to lull the watchman into a false sleep. Most of all I am sure of this -- a time will come when we will be asked what we have done for the least of our brothers.
If you've made it this far, I'll ask you to go a bit farther. I'll ask you to think beyond the past two years, beyond the 24 hour news cycles, the politics of division and pessimism, and the scare tactics of distraction and illusion that better belong in a magic show than the halls of Congress. As you can tell, I'm asking you to move ahead of the things I wrote of above.
I'm asking you to consider where you stack up in this country of ours, and whether your place fits the politicians or the party you vote for every other fall.
We are a nation of ambition and labor, confidence and resolve. Take a moment to listen to both parties, and hear what they really say. Of the two, which party imagines this country as it should be?
Which imagines it as you imagine it?
Full disclosure: I am a Democrat. But before you stop reading, I'll make a concession. I understand, to some degree, the backlash and the reasons that many Americans voted for Republican candidates last year. I want to argue that the vitriol sparked by health care reform was largely a result of President Obama's complete and total failure to explain and sell not only the health care bill, but even the stimulus package a few months prior. However, despite the mistakes in effective messaging, Obama made a bigger mistake -- he opted to swing for the fences when a few base hits would have made everyone happier. I know why Obama went all-in for the health care bill instead of continuing to focus on reviving the economy and creating jobs. He emerged from the 2008 election with an enormous amount of political capital and then made the calculated, yet highly ambitious, decision to achieve once-and-for-all the great dream of the Democratic Party -- health care reform. I've read that Obama, early on in his presidency often said that he would rather be a one-term president who did "something" instead of a two-term president who did nothing. I commend him for that, and I think all Americans should as well. George W. Bush certainly choose the opposite path, but that is a story for another time.
Regardless, I must be said now that Obama should have swallowed his ambition and devoted his entire attention towards combatting the growing unemployment rate. Maybe he believed that the economy was turning around. Maybe he knew what the score was, and choose to get while the getting was good. We'll never know, but right now, it looks as if he put the horse before the cart.
With all of that said, and if you're still with me, I'll move on to the 3 reasons why the Democratic Party is better than the GOP ...
1) Democrats don't always choose the best fiscal policies, but Republicans don't understand fiscal policy at all.
The debt crisis was a grotesque abuse of representative power by the GOP, and especially the Teasies. The federal government has never been required to balance its budget, and hasn't done so in decades with the exclusion of the final years of Clinton's presidency. Likewise, the federal government has never been required to have no deficit, and has had one since Eisenhower's presidency.
Fiscal policy means that the federal government can borrow money, which means that its expenditures can exceed its revenues. While it may be true that our debt shouldn't grow exponentially, it is certainly true that we are not approaching insolvency because though the federal government is borrowing money, it is also loaning money at an equal or higher interest rate. In other words, the federal government is making more money off of the interest from its loans than it is paying on the interest for the money it is borrowing. In business school, that is called a profit. And in the real world, that is called China (and other foreign countries) buying Treasury bills hand over fist. You may ask, why would they do this if we are such a broken country? It's because we aren't. In fact, we're still the safest bet and the best investment on the planet.
Democrats understand that federal fiscal policy is entirely different from state fiscal policy and individual fiscal practices. Republicans think they're all the same.
Even if someone can't do a great job of describing a duck, I'd rather listen to that person instead of someone who thinks a duck is a goose.
2) If you elect people who hate government, you can't be surprised when they decide to run the government into the ground.
The current batch of Republicans must have skipped a lot of American history classes. They often call themselves the party of Lincoln and Reagan. Uncomfortably for them, and certainly unfortunate for those three great presidents, their historical allusions are off the mark.
Lincoln refused to let the Union fall apart. He presided over the bloodiest war in American history in the pursuit of the preservation of a government he knew and loved. He died because of his hope that the government he loved could become something better.
Reagan famously declared that government is not the solution to our problems, but instead government is the problem. The real problem with that statement is that Reagan clearly believed in government. During his eight years as president, he significantly grew the size of the federal government. Whether is was through increased taxes, a larger federal military defense, or a continuation - if not an enlargement - of the federal bureaucracy, Reagan clearly did not despise the government.
In clear opposition, current Republicans possess a healthy disgust for the government. If the notion of someone pursuing a position of power in something that he or she hates confuses you, don't scratch your head alone, because it confuses me too.
Even though I believe it is clear that Republicans hate the government (especially the Teasies), hate is too strong of a word for me, and so I won't venture a metaphor. Instead, I will simply ask you to imagine why anyone would ask people to do something that they hate, and then expect those people to do a good job.
3) Democrats are better conservatives than Republicans.
For that past twenty or so years, the so-called "welfare state" has been under perpetual attack from the Right. Republicans have fought tooth and nail to dismantle Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and welfare. And make no mistake -- Republicans haven't attempted to improve those essential domestic programs. No, instead they have attacked them on an institutional level, arguing that those programs, programs which provide a social safety net for individuals in need, are an anathema and a blood-sucking leech on this country.
Hubert Humphrey once said, "The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped."
If you accept, at least at its most fundamental level, Humphrey's statement, then the scorecard couldn't be more clear. Republicans are supposed to be the party of small government. If government is to serve any function, if government is to measure up to any bar, surely it is the standard described by Humphrey. If we are truly the most advanced and the wealthiest nation on this Earth, surely if we do one thing, we will take care of those among us who are in the dawn, the twilight, and the shadows of life. The Republicans, however, have fought to eradicate such humanity in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and subsidies for oil companies whose profit margins exceed that of many nations.
And instead, the Democratic Party has tolerated debates and succumbed to onslaughts against the most basic social systems. Through those debates and in response to those onslaughts, Democrats have shrunken welfare, have acquiesced to cuts in Medicare, and have offered honest changes to Social Security. Republicans are supposed to be the party of conservatism, but is has been the Democrats who have been willing to make concessions and find savings in places where savings are most sparse. In other words, one party has refused to be a part of any solution, and instead of returning a cold shoulder, the other party has decided to be the adult at the table chooses reason over bickering, compromise over bickering, and conservation over destruction.
American politics is often frustrating, unsatisfying, and ugly. I would argue that this is how our democracy was intended.
It is supposed to be hard to bring about large-scale change, and our constitution is constructed in such a way that resists the accumulation of power in a single group of people. The Bill of Rights has been the most copied framework among other democracies since the creation of our own, and those ten amendments function as an unabashed protector of the minority. The logic is pretty simple: the powerful have enough power, they don't need any more. It is the weak and the disenfranchised who must be watched over.
It was an ambitious and diverse group of individuals that gathered in those hot, small houses in Philadelphia some two hundred and odds years ago, and we are surely more so now. But I've learned to hesitate from offering a definite explanation of what was discussed and decided in those sweltering summer months in 1789. It is amazing what seems to get lost in translation.
I am sure of one thing, and it is that I have found a group of people who are both willing to govern and to compromise. But what we are unwilling to abide is the perpetuation of a lie, the con of a slick sell, the sleight of hand which allows apathy and naiveté to lull the watchman into a false sleep. Most of all I am sure of this -- a time will come when we will be asked what we have done for the least of our brothers.
If you've made it this far, I'll ask you to go a bit farther. I'll ask you to think beyond the past two years, beyond the 24 hour news cycles, the politics of division and pessimism, and the scare tactics of distraction and illusion that better belong in a magic show than the halls of Congress. As you can tell, I'm asking you to move ahead of the things I wrote of above.
I'm asking you to consider where you stack up in this country of ours, and whether your place fits the politicians or the party you vote for every other fall.
We are a nation of ambition and labor, confidence and resolve. Take a moment to listen to both parties, and hear what they really say. Of the two, which party imagines this country as it should be?
Which imagines it as you imagine it?
Friday, June 17, 2011
Review of "Super 8"
3 stars out of 4
"Super 8" is summer entertainment at its best. Suspenseful. Action scenes that aren't just about the action, but more about how the characters are affected. Characters that we can relate to, that aren't two dimensional, and that are developed so that we care what happens to them. It is a film that keeps the audience guessing, but doesn't wait until the final frames to clue us in. We get bits a pieces of the puzzle as we go, and we're allowed to form opinions with enough time left to revise and modify. Perhaps even better, the plot allows the characters to go through the same process.
True to all Spielberg-touched mystery/dramas, we don't see the monster until well into the film. And though Spielberg produced the film and his influence is clear, JJ Abrams wrote and directed, so most of the credit must be placed on his shoulders. The gas station scene in which we first get a glimpse of the monster is directing perfection. Instead of seeing the monster straight on, we see its reflection in a pool of gasoline on the ground. A gas station attendant sees what we want to see - the monster eye-to-eye - and though we get an idea of what is lurking in the shadows, we still aren't fully satisfied, and so the suspense builds. This particular scene reminded me a lot of Jurassic Park. Instead of just waltzing out the T-Rex, Spielberg first showed us the vibrating water. We knew what that little ripple meant. But Spielberg made us wait just a bit longer, letting our imaginations run wild before giving us what we wanted.
The main characters are middle-schoolers, but this isn't a kid's movie. One, Joe, has been visited by the worst of tragedies. Just before he would discover the opposite sex, his innocence was destroyed in a much worse way, and though his strength is clear, he carries an enduring pain in his face. Another, Alice, is more than just the cutest girl in her grade. A new addition to the group, she reveals in a powerful scene within a scene that she has either been forced to deal with issues beyond her age, or she has always hid a deeper disposition behind her pretty face. The other kids, like Joe and Alice, do things kids do. But the train wreck they witness acts as a catalyst to reveal their strengths and their flaws, and instead of seeing a group of irrational children, we see individuals coping like adults, and better than adults in many instances.
Besides the awesome special effects, the well-conceived plot, and the total lack of "gotcha" moments, I was relieved to find a good mystery populated by real people. Some have secrets, prejudices, assumptions, and fears. We suspect that some of the characters have more complicated pasts than we know, pasts that intertwine in substantial ways. And when those suspicions are addressed, they aren't fanciful or illogical. Instead, we're given answers that make devastating sense. Just as life tends to be, the connections are simple and unfair.
Ultimately, Super 8 doesn't aim to deliver any message or principle, and I'm glad for that. We're asked to acknowledge the misguided nature and limits of human beings. But all the while, we watch a select group of people, both young and old, demonstrate the kind of qualities that make us so special. We adapt, and we are open minded. We are courageous, even in the face of the unknown. We are deeply compassionate and have an unfathomable ability to forgive, especially when that forgiveness is desperately needed by another. If the film does have a message, it is that these qualities are not necessarily universal, but that they are universally recognized for their rareness and immeasurable worth.
Super 8 is not a perfect film, and it may well be the second best film of the summer. It has missteps, namely the fact that we are forced to consider unnecessary characters at the expense of being forced to accept the rushed development of important parent-child relationships of the two primary characters. But Super 8 is still a fine film.
"Super 8" is summer entertainment at its best. Suspenseful. Action scenes that aren't just about the action, but more about how the characters are affected. Characters that we can relate to, that aren't two dimensional, and that are developed so that we care what happens to them. It is a film that keeps the audience guessing, but doesn't wait until the final frames to clue us in. We get bits a pieces of the puzzle as we go, and we're allowed to form opinions with enough time left to revise and modify. Perhaps even better, the plot allows the characters to go through the same process.
True to all Spielberg-touched mystery/dramas, we don't see the monster until well into the film. And though Spielberg produced the film and his influence is clear, JJ Abrams wrote and directed, so most of the credit must be placed on his shoulders. The gas station scene in which we first get a glimpse of the monster is directing perfection. Instead of seeing the monster straight on, we see its reflection in a pool of gasoline on the ground. A gas station attendant sees what we want to see - the monster eye-to-eye - and though we get an idea of what is lurking in the shadows, we still aren't fully satisfied, and so the suspense builds. This particular scene reminded me a lot of Jurassic Park. Instead of just waltzing out the T-Rex, Spielberg first showed us the vibrating water. We knew what that little ripple meant. But Spielberg made us wait just a bit longer, letting our imaginations run wild before giving us what we wanted.
The main characters are middle-schoolers, but this isn't a kid's movie. One, Joe, has been visited by the worst of tragedies. Just before he would discover the opposite sex, his innocence was destroyed in a much worse way, and though his strength is clear, he carries an enduring pain in his face. Another, Alice, is more than just the cutest girl in her grade. A new addition to the group, she reveals in a powerful scene within a scene that she has either been forced to deal with issues beyond her age, or she has always hid a deeper disposition behind her pretty face. The other kids, like Joe and Alice, do things kids do. But the train wreck they witness acts as a catalyst to reveal their strengths and their flaws, and instead of seeing a group of irrational children, we see individuals coping like adults, and better than adults in many instances.
Besides the awesome special effects, the well-conceived plot, and the total lack of "gotcha" moments, I was relieved to find a good mystery populated by real people. Some have secrets, prejudices, assumptions, and fears. We suspect that some of the characters have more complicated pasts than we know, pasts that intertwine in substantial ways. And when those suspicions are addressed, they aren't fanciful or illogical. Instead, we're given answers that make devastating sense. Just as life tends to be, the connections are simple and unfair.
Ultimately, Super 8 doesn't aim to deliver any message or principle, and I'm glad for that. We're asked to acknowledge the misguided nature and limits of human beings. But all the while, we watch a select group of people, both young and old, demonstrate the kind of qualities that make us so special. We adapt, and we are open minded. We are courageous, even in the face of the unknown. We are deeply compassionate and have an unfathomable ability to forgive, especially when that forgiveness is desperately needed by another. If the film does have a message, it is that these qualities are not necessarily universal, but that they are universally recognized for their rareness and immeasurable worth.
Super 8 is not a perfect film, and it may well be the second best film of the summer. It has missteps, namely the fact that we are forced to consider unnecessary characters at the expense of being forced to accept the rushed development of important parent-child relationships of the two primary characters. But Super 8 is still a fine film.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Georgia Bulldogs in 2011 - Post #10
This post will be a little different. Instead of looking at a facet of Georgia's team, I'm going to talk about the one SEC that will fall below expectations, and the one SEC team that is being overlooked. Also, I'll address the web chatter that is anointing Georgia as the dark horse of the SEC, and whether that is an apt choice.
BIG DISAPPOINTMENT -- LSU
Though my post-spring ball pick to win the SEC was LSU, I can't deny that of the three hyped SEC teams (LSU, Alabama, and South Carolina), LSU is the most likely to finish with a whimper instead of a bang. South Carolina is a lesser team, but it also plays in the weaker SEC East and its major non-conference game is against Clemson, a good team that may soon reach the next level, but not this year. I think Bama and LSU are very much alike, they have common weaknesses and question marks in similar places. But it is clear that Bama has a much friendlier schedule than does LSU. Simply put, LSU has a smaller margin for error. And so, though it seems counterintuitive to tab my post-spring favorite as the likeliest failure, the extenuating circumstances require the designation.
BIG SURPRISE -- FLORIDA
This is probably a surprise, and I admit that. But let me explain. The "Big Surprise" team must win at least 9 games.
I don't see Tennessee accomplishing such a feat. Their schedule is beastly, and they're still low on talent.
Mississippi St. seems to be a beneath-the-radar team, but I'm selling cowbell stock. They're in the West (which translates into "death row" this year), the offense won't be spectacular, and I think the absence of Manny Diaz will be harshly felt.
Ole Miss? No.
I'm most inclined to say Auburn could surprise people. Partly because so many are predicting the Tigers to struggle since they only return 8 starters, and mostly because a certain Heisman Trophy winner and 1st overall pick will no longer be playing QB in the Plains. But Chizik and company have recruited very well, Gus Malzahn is still the best OC in the country, and I think Auburn has built the type of foundation that allows programs to reload year in and year out.
But the 2010 NC bought Chizik a lot of time, and I for one think he will use it to build for 2012.
That leaves Florida, almost by default, but also because a few factors are playing in their favor.
The schedule isn't bad, the East is weak again, and I foresee the Muschamp era beginning with fewer hiccups than your normal transition of power. Meyer resigned (not fired), stayed around to help foster a sense of normalcy, and then the two big reasons why I think Florida could surprise people.
1) Smooth Transition
The coaches that couldn't help (like Addazio) left, and the ones that could (the better ones like the S&C coach) stayed. Then, in comes Muschamp and Weis - two coaches that have a long track record of first-year success in new places. The SEC is rarely gentle with first year coaches. 2011 Florida may be an exception.
2) They have the talent
The roster is still choked with big time players. Weis could transform Brantley into the QB he was touted as coming out of HS. There is a lot of speed and skill on offense, and Weis is probably one of the best offensive minds in the country so he will play the cards he's been dealt. Most importantly, the defense could be downright nasty if the D-line is as advertised coming out of spring ball. If there is one first principle in college football it is this: it is better to have a mediocre offense and a great defense than the other way around.
GEORGIA THE DARK HORSE?
Granted, most of the love Georgia got came earlier in the spring, post-recruiting boon and pre-Trinton Sturdivant injury. But there are still many smart college football people out there that have hinted at a resurgent 2011 for the Dawgs. Personally, I reluctantly say that this banter is probably a product of people believing that CMR has to improve dramatically for obvious reasons, and from the knowledge that he has produced great teams in the past, thus meaning he can do so again. So, these predictions come more from gut-feeling than X's and O's.
If I had to make a prediction, I'd say it's 60-40 that the Dawgs have a breakout year. Not a sure thing, but not a hope and a prayer either. I say that not because we return Murray and Charles. Not because I hope Crowell will be a beast. I say that because I think the defense may surprise people.
The D-line and the linebackers could be dominant. And I don't say that lightly, because Georgia hasn't been dominant at either unit in quite some time. But the pieces are there if they can fit together.
If those two units are as good as they can be, they should protect a weaker secondary than one would like. But that is just where I start to get optimistic. I don't see many teams on our schedule that will try to throw the ball a lot on us.
Boise is more balanced than people think, and they lost their best WR's to the draft.
Spurrier considers running the ball more than passing it to be similar to having a double root canal, but he knows Lattimore is his best player so he will be persuaded to lean on the running game.
Auburn, Tennessee, and especially Ga Tech don't have the players to rely heavily on the passing game.
I only worry about Florida, who will have adopted Weis's pro-style passing offense. But they don't yet have any big time WR's, and if they wisely choose to rely on their speedy playmakers, those players are RBs who I think our fast LBs can matchup with very well.
Don't get me wrong, I'll be the last person to say that I was surprised to see the Dawgs reel off a 10 win season. The talent is there, the coaching is there, the schedule is right, and I think the team is hungry. Some interesting quotes came out of the spring. Talk of addition by subtraction, of being rid of "cancerous" players who either were too lazy or too focused on their draft status. We'll see. If the leaders of the team are truly all in, then this could be a dangerous team come October. But like I said. We'll see.
BIG DISAPPOINTMENT -- LSU
Though my post-spring ball pick to win the SEC was LSU, I can't deny that of the three hyped SEC teams (LSU, Alabama, and South Carolina), LSU is the most likely to finish with a whimper instead of a bang. South Carolina is a lesser team, but it also plays in the weaker SEC East and its major non-conference game is against Clemson, a good team that may soon reach the next level, but not this year. I think Bama and LSU are very much alike, they have common weaknesses and question marks in similar places. But it is clear that Bama has a much friendlier schedule than does LSU. Simply put, LSU has a smaller margin for error. And so, though it seems counterintuitive to tab my post-spring favorite as the likeliest failure, the extenuating circumstances require the designation.
BIG SURPRISE -- FLORIDA
This is probably a surprise, and I admit that. But let me explain. The "Big Surprise" team must win at least 9 games.
I don't see Tennessee accomplishing such a feat. Their schedule is beastly, and they're still low on talent.
Mississippi St. seems to be a beneath-the-radar team, but I'm selling cowbell stock. They're in the West (which translates into "death row" this year), the offense won't be spectacular, and I think the absence of Manny Diaz will be harshly felt.
Ole Miss? No.
I'm most inclined to say Auburn could surprise people. Partly because so many are predicting the Tigers to struggle since they only return 8 starters, and mostly because a certain Heisman Trophy winner and 1st overall pick will no longer be playing QB in the Plains. But Chizik and company have recruited very well, Gus Malzahn is still the best OC in the country, and I think Auburn has built the type of foundation that allows programs to reload year in and year out.
But the 2010 NC bought Chizik a lot of time, and I for one think he will use it to build for 2012.
That leaves Florida, almost by default, but also because a few factors are playing in their favor.
The schedule isn't bad, the East is weak again, and I foresee the Muschamp era beginning with fewer hiccups than your normal transition of power. Meyer resigned (not fired), stayed around to help foster a sense of normalcy, and then the two big reasons why I think Florida could surprise people.
1) Smooth Transition
The coaches that couldn't help (like Addazio) left, and the ones that could (the better ones like the S&C coach) stayed. Then, in comes Muschamp and Weis - two coaches that have a long track record of first-year success in new places. The SEC is rarely gentle with first year coaches. 2011 Florida may be an exception.
2) They have the talent
The roster is still choked with big time players. Weis could transform Brantley into the QB he was touted as coming out of HS. There is a lot of speed and skill on offense, and Weis is probably one of the best offensive minds in the country so he will play the cards he's been dealt. Most importantly, the defense could be downright nasty if the D-line is as advertised coming out of spring ball. If there is one first principle in college football it is this: it is better to have a mediocre offense and a great defense than the other way around.
GEORGIA THE DARK HORSE?
Granted, most of the love Georgia got came earlier in the spring, post-recruiting boon and pre-Trinton Sturdivant injury. But there are still many smart college football people out there that have hinted at a resurgent 2011 for the Dawgs. Personally, I reluctantly say that this banter is probably a product of people believing that CMR has to improve dramatically for obvious reasons, and from the knowledge that he has produced great teams in the past, thus meaning he can do so again. So, these predictions come more from gut-feeling than X's and O's.
If I had to make a prediction, I'd say it's 60-40 that the Dawgs have a breakout year. Not a sure thing, but not a hope and a prayer either. I say that not because we return Murray and Charles. Not because I hope Crowell will be a beast. I say that because I think the defense may surprise people.
The D-line and the linebackers could be dominant. And I don't say that lightly, because Georgia hasn't been dominant at either unit in quite some time. But the pieces are there if they can fit together.
If those two units are as good as they can be, they should protect a weaker secondary than one would like. But that is just where I start to get optimistic. I don't see many teams on our schedule that will try to throw the ball a lot on us.
Boise is more balanced than people think, and they lost their best WR's to the draft.
Spurrier considers running the ball more than passing it to be similar to having a double root canal, but he knows Lattimore is his best player so he will be persuaded to lean on the running game.
Auburn, Tennessee, and especially Ga Tech don't have the players to rely heavily on the passing game.
I only worry about Florida, who will have adopted Weis's pro-style passing offense. But they don't yet have any big time WR's, and if they wisely choose to rely on their speedy playmakers, those players are RBs who I think our fast LBs can matchup with very well.
Don't get me wrong, I'll be the last person to say that I was surprised to see the Dawgs reel off a 10 win season. The talent is there, the coaching is there, the schedule is right, and I think the team is hungry. Some interesting quotes came out of the spring. Talk of addition by subtraction, of being rid of "cancerous" players who either were too lazy or too focused on their draft status. We'll see. If the leaders of the team are truly all in, then this could be a dangerous team come October. But like I said. We'll see.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Georgia Bulldogs in 2011 - Post #9
This post is a response to Andy Staples' current article on SI.com listing his take on the top 20 jobs in college football. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/06/03/best-college-football-jobs/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t12_a2
His top ten goes like this:
1. Texas
2. Ohio State
3. Oklahoma
4. Florida
5. Georgia
6. LSU
7. Alabama
8. Penn State
9. Auburn
10. Oregon
Staples ranked the top 20 not on prestige or legacy alone. He factored in whether a program has to battle other instate rivals for recruits, whether the pressures of the job border on certifiable insanity, and whether a program currently has the resources to produce elite teams year in and year out. I won't pick at the rankings. I just want to react to his decision to place Georgia at #5, ahead of the likes of Bama, LSU, Auburn, and many other fantastic programs.
I have always felt that Georgia is a top 5 job. The program has a storied history, is undeniably the premier program in one of the most talent-rich states in the country, and has a massive yet relatively mature fan base. Sanford Stadium is a football shrine that dominates the campus, sitting right at the intersection of North Campus and South Campus, in a little valley that allows fans to peer down onto the field whether they are standing on the steps next to Park Hall or leaning on the railing of Gillis Bridge (often called Sanford Bridge).
Georgia's athletic department is also one of the richest in the country. This has allowed it to recently upgrade the football facilities to the point of rivaling any other in the country. Also, this war chest will allow the program to go after big name assistants (or head coaches) or through a bunch of money at a superstar coordinator in order to keep him from taking a head coaching job elsewhere. Of course, that would require Georgia to first have a superstar coordinator, which remains to be seen.
I could go on, but this is a good place to ask the pertinent question: If Georgia is a top 5 job, why hasn't Georgia produced more top 5 teams in the recent years?
This is, of course, the million dollar question. I think there are a few reasons ...
1. Georgia's fan base is an anomaly. While robust and dedicated, Georgia fans are a bit more down to earth than those found in Alabama and Louisiana. Georgia fans expect to win, but they do not encircle the head coach's house after a bad loss. They don't relentlessly demand undefeated seasons quite the way other fan bases do. Georgia is an odd great program in the sense that it does not truly have an arch rival whom Georgia must beat each year if the season is to be considered a success. Old Georgia fans consider Georgia Tech to be the rival, but younger Georgia fans don't share this sentiment and the fact that Georgia has dominated the series for the past 10 or 15 years doesn't really help in creating the level of tension that an Auburn-Bama rivalry has. Younger Georgia fans view Florida as the rival, but it isn't the traditional rival (that would be Tech), and the reverse of the Tech rivalry has been in effect as Florida has wholly dominated Georgia for the past 15 to 20 years.
2. It's true that many of the 5 star instate recruits in years past have been cherry-picked by other powerhouse programs. It is also safe to assume that had those players enrolled at Georgia, they would have had some measurable impact. But, Georgia's problem is not that it lets some of the local gems escape, it is player development. Georgia routinely finishes with one of the best classes each year, and yet the fruits of that labor have rarely been made evident on the field. Hopefully, Richt has addressed that over the past two years with firings and hirings. Much maligned DC Willie Martinez was fired and replaced with NFL coach Todd Grantham. Changes have been made in special teams coaching. Offensive line coach Stacy Searels was hired away (thankfully removed from Athens?) by Texas. And the strength & conditioning staff and program has been remade. Entering into 2011, Georgia has the potential to erase the memories of squandered high school talent.
3. Closely related to #1, for too long has Georgia rested on its laurels. The dominant SEC East program of the early 2000s, the aforementioned sensible fan base seemed to be late to sound the alarm bell after signs of trouble reared after the 2008 and 2009 seasons. More so, the coaching staff, and Richt in particular, appeared to let the most destructive cousin of success creep into the program -- complacency. Star players weren't pressed to be leaders. Players (and fans and media alike) talked too much about NFL draft potentialities instead of SEC wins. Bad losses were blown off instead of creating a sense of urgency and eliciting guarantees of redemption and revenge. I've long held that the '08 home loss to Alabama was both a demoralizer and a sign of worse to come. That Georgia team had the talent to win the rest of its games if it only could get pissed off, and show a little back bone. Instead, it would loose two more games. And it wasn't just that they lost two more. Georgia was blown out by Florida and then beaten by Georgia Tech -- its two biggest rivals.
So let us look again at Staples' top 10. Of those 10 teams, only Georgia and Penn State have failed to meet such lofty expectations in recent years. The two programs have commonalities, but more differences when you get down to the details. Paterno will retire as the all-time winningest college football coach. Aside from Johnny Vander Meer's back-to-back no hitters, Paterno's wins record may be the safest in all sports history. Richt has been successful, but Paterno is on the Rushmore of college football head coaches. Furthermore, Penn State and Georgia are like night and day in terms of expectations for each season.
And there in, as the Bard says, lies the rub. Georgia is not alone in the top 10 in terms of underachieving programs, but it has more in common with the other 8 programs than it does with the one other program that it shares this distinction.
His top ten goes like this:
1. Texas
2. Ohio State
3. Oklahoma
4. Florida
5. Georgia
6. LSU
7. Alabama
8. Penn State
9. Auburn
10. Oregon
Staples ranked the top 20 not on prestige or legacy alone. He factored in whether a program has to battle other instate rivals for recruits, whether the pressures of the job border on certifiable insanity, and whether a program currently has the resources to produce elite teams year in and year out. I won't pick at the rankings. I just want to react to his decision to place Georgia at #5, ahead of the likes of Bama, LSU, Auburn, and many other fantastic programs.
I have always felt that Georgia is a top 5 job. The program has a storied history, is undeniably the premier program in one of the most talent-rich states in the country, and has a massive yet relatively mature fan base. Sanford Stadium is a football shrine that dominates the campus, sitting right at the intersection of North Campus and South Campus, in a little valley that allows fans to peer down onto the field whether they are standing on the steps next to Park Hall or leaning on the railing of Gillis Bridge (often called Sanford Bridge).
Georgia's athletic department is also one of the richest in the country. This has allowed it to recently upgrade the football facilities to the point of rivaling any other in the country. Also, this war chest will allow the program to go after big name assistants (or head coaches) or through a bunch of money at a superstar coordinator in order to keep him from taking a head coaching job elsewhere. Of course, that would require Georgia to first have a superstar coordinator, which remains to be seen.
I could go on, but this is a good place to ask the pertinent question: If Georgia is a top 5 job, why hasn't Georgia produced more top 5 teams in the recent years?
This is, of course, the million dollar question. I think there are a few reasons ...
1. Georgia's fan base is an anomaly. While robust and dedicated, Georgia fans are a bit more down to earth than those found in Alabama and Louisiana. Georgia fans expect to win, but they do not encircle the head coach's house after a bad loss. They don't relentlessly demand undefeated seasons quite the way other fan bases do. Georgia is an odd great program in the sense that it does not truly have an arch rival whom Georgia must beat each year if the season is to be considered a success. Old Georgia fans consider Georgia Tech to be the rival, but younger Georgia fans don't share this sentiment and the fact that Georgia has dominated the series for the past 10 or 15 years doesn't really help in creating the level of tension that an Auburn-Bama rivalry has. Younger Georgia fans view Florida as the rival, but it isn't the traditional rival (that would be Tech), and the reverse of the Tech rivalry has been in effect as Florida has wholly dominated Georgia for the past 15 to 20 years.
2. It's true that many of the 5 star instate recruits in years past have been cherry-picked by other powerhouse programs. It is also safe to assume that had those players enrolled at Georgia, they would have had some measurable impact. But, Georgia's problem is not that it lets some of the local gems escape, it is player development. Georgia routinely finishes with one of the best classes each year, and yet the fruits of that labor have rarely been made evident on the field. Hopefully, Richt has addressed that over the past two years with firings and hirings. Much maligned DC Willie Martinez was fired and replaced with NFL coach Todd Grantham. Changes have been made in special teams coaching. Offensive line coach Stacy Searels was hired away (thankfully removed from Athens?) by Texas. And the strength & conditioning staff and program has been remade. Entering into 2011, Georgia has the potential to erase the memories of squandered high school talent.
3. Closely related to #1, for too long has Georgia rested on its laurels. The dominant SEC East program of the early 2000s, the aforementioned sensible fan base seemed to be late to sound the alarm bell after signs of trouble reared after the 2008 and 2009 seasons. More so, the coaching staff, and Richt in particular, appeared to let the most destructive cousin of success creep into the program -- complacency. Star players weren't pressed to be leaders. Players (and fans and media alike) talked too much about NFL draft potentialities instead of SEC wins. Bad losses were blown off instead of creating a sense of urgency and eliciting guarantees of redemption and revenge. I've long held that the '08 home loss to Alabama was both a demoralizer and a sign of worse to come. That Georgia team had the talent to win the rest of its games if it only could get pissed off, and show a little back bone. Instead, it would loose two more games. And it wasn't just that they lost two more. Georgia was blown out by Florida and then beaten by Georgia Tech -- its two biggest rivals.
So let us look again at Staples' top 10. Of those 10 teams, only Georgia and Penn State have failed to meet such lofty expectations in recent years. The two programs have commonalities, but more differences when you get down to the details. Paterno will retire as the all-time winningest college football coach. Aside from Johnny Vander Meer's back-to-back no hitters, Paterno's wins record may be the safest in all sports history. Richt has been successful, but Paterno is on the Rushmore of college football head coaches. Furthermore, Penn State and Georgia are like night and day in terms of expectations for each season.
And there in, as the Bard says, lies the rub. Georgia is not alone in the top 10 in terms of underachieving programs, but it has more in common with the other 8 programs than it does with the one other program that it shares this distinction.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Georgia Bulldogs in 2011 - Post #8
This post is about "tempered expectations." But before we get to that ...
Though I have had my criticisms of CMR over the years, the wholly disastrous and humiliating end of Jim Tressel's tenure as the head coach of the Ohio State University has made this Dawgs fan grateful for the dignified manner in which CMR has led our football program. Though CMR has never flaunted his values-led leadership in quite the (now repulsive) outward manner that Tressel did, I have always thought that CMR was the SEC's counterpoint to The Vest, The Senator, the "pure" Jim Tressel. CMR is widely known as a faith-driven man who has placed the measure of the growth of his players beyond the numbers in the win column. So I for one will praise CMR for continuing to represent the University of Georgia with honor and pride. If the college football world is sickened with discovering that one of its most lofty coaches only talked the talk, I suggest you look to Athens, GA for a man that walks the walk.
Now, on to some X's and O's ...
In contrast to the sweltering heat of the southern summer, my expectations for the 2011 season have fallen quite a bit. We are more likely to start 0-2 than 2-0, and I have a difficult time stating with confidence that we will beat either Boise St. or South Carolina.
My diminished hope rests largely on a ravaged offensive line entering the fall. Solid defenses like Boise St., South Carolina, Florida, and Mississippi St will give us fits. I think Auburn will be a hot team by the time we play them, and Kentucky seems to have our number of late. A loss to one of those two teams is probably more likely than Dawgs fans would like to admit.
Neither Tennessee or Ole Miss is likely to shock the SEC with a 9 win season, but both have playmakers and on a fluky afternoon, we could easily lose to either.
Earlier, I predicted a 9-3 season. A part of me still believes that mark is more than attainable. But there are so many "ifs" going into this season.
If the defense grasps the 3-4 and regains the form of those Georgia defenses of the early 2000's, we'll be good.
If the remaining offensive lineman don't get injured, Murray should have time to find Charles, King, and Brown.
If Crowell is as advertised, we'll have one of the best running backs in the SEC.
If ...
The diehard Dawgs fan in me wants to bring up all the "ifs" that Boise, Florida, Auburn, Miss St, and Ga Tech face going into the fall. But I was way too bullish on the Dawgs last year, and that is reigning my optimism in quite a bit.
And so, I think 8-4 is probably more realistic. Losses to Boise, South Carolina, Florida, and then one more to a team we probably shouldn't lose to but there will be at least one evening when all of our holes are exposed and the opposing team doesn't make a mistake.
Though I have had my criticisms of CMR over the years, the wholly disastrous and humiliating end of Jim Tressel's tenure as the head coach of the Ohio State University has made this Dawgs fan grateful for the dignified manner in which CMR has led our football program. Though CMR has never flaunted his values-led leadership in quite the (now repulsive) outward manner that Tressel did, I have always thought that CMR was the SEC's counterpoint to The Vest, The Senator, the "pure" Jim Tressel. CMR is widely known as a faith-driven man who has placed the measure of the growth of his players beyond the numbers in the win column. So I for one will praise CMR for continuing to represent the University of Georgia with honor and pride. If the college football world is sickened with discovering that one of its most lofty coaches only talked the talk, I suggest you look to Athens, GA for a man that walks the walk.
Now, on to some X's and O's ...
In contrast to the sweltering heat of the southern summer, my expectations for the 2011 season have fallen quite a bit. We are more likely to start 0-2 than 2-0, and I have a difficult time stating with confidence that we will beat either Boise St. or South Carolina.
My diminished hope rests largely on a ravaged offensive line entering the fall. Solid defenses like Boise St., South Carolina, Florida, and Mississippi St will give us fits. I think Auburn will be a hot team by the time we play them, and Kentucky seems to have our number of late. A loss to one of those two teams is probably more likely than Dawgs fans would like to admit.
Neither Tennessee or Ole Miss is likely to shock the SEC with a 9 win season, but both have playmakers and on a fluky afternoon, we could easily lose to either.
Earlier, I predicted a 9-3 season. A part of me still believes that mark is more than attainable. But there are so many "ifs" going into this season.
If the defense grasps the 3-4 and regains the form of those Georgia defenses of the early 2000's, we'll be good.
If the remaining offensive lineman don't get injured, Murray should have time to find Charles, King, and Brown.
If Crowell is as advertised, we'll have one of the best running backs in the SEC.
If ...
The diehard Dawgs fan in me wants to bring up all the "ifs" that Boise, Florida, Auburn, Miss St, and Ga Tech face going into the fall. But I was way too bullish on the Dawgs last year, and that is reigning my optimism in quite a bit.
And so, I think 8-4 is probably more realistic. Losses to Boise, South Carolina, Florida, and then one more to a team we probably shouldn't lose to but there will be at least one evening when all of our holes are exposed and the opposing team doesn't make a mistake.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Georgia Bulldogs in 2011 - Post #7
I think we can lay to rest Father Coach Mark Richt (2001-2010). I won't go as far to say that there is a new sheriff in town, but we can at least say that FCMR is no more. In his place we have the new Four Star General Coach Mark Richt. Tough, stern, demanding, semi-angry.
Washaun Ealey? Catch the Greyhound out of town, my friend.
AJ Harmon? Don't let the door hit you on the but on the way out.
So the question is this: Is it addition by subtraction? Or will the Dawgs feel the affects of these departures come fall?
We're a better team without Ealey. He failed to live up to his billing as a sought-after instate recruit, and he let his brief success two years get to his head. He didn't work hard, wasn't a leader in the locker room, was a distraction off the field, and never showed up in big games. King is a better player, even though he probably has less natural talent than Ealey. Both are stories of what might have been. But at least King has a relatively acceptable excuse. He blew out his knee his senior year in HS, and he has been a step lower and a little afraid of contact ever since. Ealey had no excuse for his lack of work effort and dedication. Make no mistake, Georgia is better off without him.
AJ Harmon's departure is going to hurt. Despite the fact that the O-line was less than stellar last year, we were already moving into a transition period this spring after the departure of O-line star Cordy Glenn. The O-line, with anchor Ben Jones at center, some rising talent, and a new (thank goodness!) O-line coach in Coach Friend, looked as if it would not be a liability heading into the season. Then, Trinton Sturdivant blew out one of his knees for the third time in his college career. Just like that, the two best tackles from 2010 were gone, making Harmon that much more crucial for success.
CMR cited "personal reasons" for Harmon's decision to transfer, but for those who have been paying attention, it seems clear that Harmon was to be declared academically ineligible. So in a sense, his place in the starting lineup was unlikely even if he stayed.
The main point is that the offensive line, which was already an area of concern, has suffered major losses coming out of the spring.
As long as CMR is the HC at Georgia, we will run a pro-style offense. That means that we will need big, talented offensive linemen. Spread offenses can get away with undersized and less than spectacular linemen because they employ misdirection and quick hits. Georgia's offense, when it was at its best under CMR, was strong enough to permit a solid run-game which set up CMR's bread and butter - the play action. I firmly believe that Crowell has the talent to be an elite RB. So long as he works hard and stays focused, he could help assuage Dawgs fans of their longing for Knowshon-like production at the position. However, a team can win 8 games with a shoddy O-line, but it can't win any more than that. Not in the SEC.
This fact is what solidifies my belief that Harmon was going to be out for the fall due to poor academic performance. CMR would have done everything he could to keep one of his starting O-lineman if there was any way that he could play in the fall.
Unfortunately, Harmon's departure has led me to downgrade expectations for the 2011 season. Georgia has its most friendly schedule in years. But, we'll face stout D-lines against Boise St, South Carolina, and Florida. A loss to Boise will sting, but it won't have any bearing on SEC standings, and in a year in which Georgia won't contend for a national championship, a non-conference loss won't be terrible in the big picture. I believe that we can still make it to Atlanta with a loss to Florida, as quickly as it make Dawgs fans' stomachs turn to accept another loss to those who wear jean shorts.
However, if we lose to South Carolina, we won't win the East. Of this I am certain.
Hopefully, some of the younger offensive lineman step up. But as of now, Georgia is vulnerable at the offensive line. And that is one of the worst places to have concerns heading into the fall.
Washaun Ealey? Catch the Greyhound out of town, my friend.
AJ Harmon? Don't let the door hit you on the but on the way out.
So the question is this: Is it addition by subtraction? Or will the Dawgs feel the affects of these departures come fall?
We're a better team without Ealey. He failed to live up to his billing as a sought-after instate recruit, and he let his brief success two years get to his head. He didn't work hard, wasn't a leader in the locker room, was a distraction off the field, and never showed up in big games. King is a better player, even though he probably has less natural talent than Ealey. Both are stories of what might have been. But at least King has a relatively acceptable excuse. He blew out his knee his senior year in HS, and he has been a step lower and a little afraid of contact ever since. Ealey had no excuse for his lack of work effort and dedication. Make no mistake, Georgia is better off without him.
AJ Harmon's departure is going to hurt. Despite the fact that the O-line was less than stellar last year, we were already moving into a transition period this spring after the departure of O-line star Cordy Glenn. The O-line, with anchor Ben Jones at center, some rising talent, and a new (thank goodness!) O-line coach in Coach Friend, looked as if it would not be a liability heading into the season. Then, Trinton Sturdivant blew out one of his knees for the third time in his college career. Just like that, the two best tackles from 2010 were gone, making Harmon that much more crucial for success.
CMR cited "personal reasons" for Harmon's decision to transfer, but for those who have been paying attention, it seems clear that Harmon was to be declared academically ineligible. So in a sense, his place in the starting lineup was unlikely even if he stayed.
The main point is that the offensive line, which was already an area of concern, has suffered major losses coming out of the spring.
As long as CMR is the HC at Georgia, we will run a pro-style offense. That means that we will need big, talented offensive linemen. Spread offenses can get away with undersized and less than spectacular linemen because they employ misdirection and quick hits. Georgia's offense, when it was at its best under CMR, was strong enough to permit a solid run-game which set up CMR's bread and butter - the play action. I firmly believe that Crowell has the talent to be an elite RB. So long as he works hard and stays focused, he could help assuage Dawgs fans of their longing for Knowshon-like production at the position. However, a team can win 8 games with a shoddy O-line, but it can't win any more than that. Not in the SEC.
This fact is what solidifies my belief that Harmon was going to be out for the fall due to poor academic performance. CMR would have done everything he could to keep one of his starting O-lineman if there was any way that he could play in the fall.
Unfortunately, Harmon's departure has led me to downgrade expectations for the 2011 season. Georgia has its most friendly schedule in years. But, we'll face stout D-lines against Boise St, South Carolina, and Florida. A loss to Boise will sting, but it won't have any bearing on SEC standings, and in a year in which Georgia won't contend for a national championship, a non-conference loss won't be terrible in the big picture. I believe that we can still make it to Atlanta with a loss to Florida, as quickly as it make Dawgs fans' stomachs turn to accept another loss to those who wear jean shorts.
However, if we lose to South Carolina, we won't win the East. Of this I am certain.
Hopefully, some of the younger offensive lineman step up. But as of now, Georgia is vulnerable at the offensive line. And that is one of the worst places to have concerns heading into the fall.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Who Will Reign Supreme in 2011
Ok, spring football is over, it's time for a way-too-early prediction about how the 2011 season will play out. I'll give you Andy Staples' 2011 preseason rankings, and then predict how the top ten will finish (no records, just standings). Should be fun.
The Staples Preseason Top 25 ...
1. Oklahoma
2. Oregon
3. LSU
4. Alabama
5. Stanford
6. Ohio St.
7. Texas A&M
8. TCU
9. South Carolina
10. FSU
11. Boise St.
12. Nebraska
13. Missouri
14. Auburn
15. Wisconsin
16. Michigan St.
17. Arkansas
18. Oklahoma St.
19. Virginia Tech
20. West Virginia
21. Georgia
22. Mississippi St.
23. Arizona St.
24. Notre Dame
25. Utah
Here's how I see the Top Ten heading into bowl season ...
1. Oklahoma (Conference Champion)
2. LSU (Conference Champion)
3. FSU (Conference Champion)
4. Alabama
5. Ohio St. (Conference Champion)
6. Nebraska
7. Oregon (Conference Champion)
8. Texas A&M
9. Virginia Tech
10. Boise St. (Conference Champion)
The Staples Preseason Top 25 ...
1. Oklahoma
2. Oregon
3. LSU
4. Alabama
5. Stanford
6. Ohio St.
7. Texas A&M
8. TCU
9. South Carolina
10. FSU
11. Boise St.
12. Nebraska
13. Missouri
14. Auburn
15. Wisconsin
16. Michigan St.
17. Arkansas
18. Oklahoma St.
19. Virginia Tech
20. West Virginia
21. Georgia
22. Mississippi St.
23. Arizona St.
24. Notre Dame
25. Utah
Here's how I see the Top Ten heading into bowl season ...
1. Oklahoma (Conference Champion)
2. LSU (Conference Champion)
3. FSU (Conference Champion)
4. Alabama
5. Ohio St. (Conference Champion)
6. Nebraska
7. Oregon (Conference Champion)
8. Texas A&M
9. Virginia Tech
10. Boise St. (Conference Champion)
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Georgia Bulldogs in 2011 - Post #5
There are rumors circulating that Georgia may wear one of those God-awful Nike Combat uniforms in the Chic-fil-a opener against Boise State. For those who don't remember, Boise St. and Virginia Tech worn hideous uniforms in their opener last year. Rumor is that a stipulation of playing in the game is that the teams have to wear the new Combat uniforms. I find this to be highly unlikely because neither Chick-fil-a (who sponsors the game) and ESPN (who airs it) have formal relationships or agreements with Nike. In every other Chick-fil-a opener, none of the teams work the atrocious Combat uniforms.
There are two reasons why we shouldn't wear the Combat uniforms, assuming that they exist somewhere out there.
1. I'm sick of Nike's profiteering on ideals that, frankly, are more deserving than a sports-related context. "Combat"? Really? Granted, sports is nothing if not overstated and embellished. We watch our favorite teams, but we're truly moved by the stories. But can't the stories rest on themselves without all the adjectives?
I think allusions to "combat" are entirely inappropriate given the fact that tens of thousands of Americans are in actual combat, real combat.
So often the word "courage" is used in sports. The team showed COURAGE on that 4th down conversion. That player must have had real COURAGE to come back into the game after hurting his arm. Etcetera and etcetera.
"Courage" is going on a midnight raid into an insurgent-held city in south Afghanistan. "Courage" is patrolling a road in Iraq known to be filled with IEDs.
So let's just stop with all these war references because they're at best lame, and at worst a slap in the face of all those men and women who know what the word means because their job isn't courage-optional.
2. Georgia's uniform is one of the most classic visions in all of college football history. Munson would always say, at the start of the game, "Ok now, Georgia. We're wearing a red helmet, red jerseys, and silver britches. Get the picture?"
There are some programs that don't have the history, the tradition, that we have. It's not a big deal for them to wear some ugly uniforms that get 11th grade recruits all excited. But we're the Georgia Bulldogs. We aren't THEM.
I fear that Richt has decided he will pull out all stops this year in hopes of bringing back some hype to the program. But I think that would be misguided. I'm hoping that he's decided to bring back the TRADITION of the program. I hope that he's realized that winning and excellence trump showmanship every day of the week and twice on Sunday. When you say "Alabama" or you say "Texas," you don't think about hip jerseys, you think about what those names mean -- they mean success, tradition, prestige.
Speaking of Bama, I seem to remember the last time we wore different jerseys. Sure, we wore black jerseys against Auburn and Hawaii and won big. But they were inferior opponents. We then wore black jerseys against Alabama, and they made good on their promise to turn the game into a funeral.
I honestly believe that we are STILL recovering from that game. It was such a demoralizing experience. After starting out as the preseason #1, we were dominated in every facet of that game and it was obvious that we weren't just the inferior team that NIGHT, between those two TEAMS. We were beat so thoroughly that it was obvious we were a fraud, and light-years away from being a true title contender. Lest us not forget, Alabama didn't even win the SEC or the NC that year. Nope. After our blackout debacle, we were thoroughly destroyed by Florida on their way to another national championship.
We need to come out in our classic uniforms against Boise St. and proceed to administer a colossal beat down. Winning by 20 will do far more than any stupid uniform will.
After all, it's not the jerseys that make the team, it's the players wearing them.
There are two reasons why we shouldn't wear the Combat uniforms, assuming that they exist somewhere out there.
1. I'm sick of Nike's profiteering on ideals that, frankly, are more deserving than a sports-related context. "Combat"? Really? Granted, sports is nothing if not overstated and embellished. We watch our favorite teams, but we're truly moved by the stories. But can't the stories rest on themselves without all the adjectives?
I think allusions to "combat" are entirely inappropriate given the fact that tens of thousands of Americans are in actual combat, real combat.
So often the word "courage" is used in sports. The team showed COURAGE on that 4th down conversion. That player must have had real COURAGE to come back into the game after hurting his arm. Etcetera and etcetera.
"Courage" is going on a midnight raid into an insurgent-held city in south Afghanistan. "Courage" is patrolling a road in Iraq known to be filled with IEDs.
So let's just stop with all these war references because they're at best lame, and at worst a slap in the face of all those men and women who know what the word means because their job isn't courage-optional.
2. Georgia's uniform is one of the most classic visions in all of college football history. Munson would always say, at the start of the game, "Ok now, Georgia. We're wearing a red helmet, red jerseys, and silver britches. Get the picture?"
There are some programs that don't have the history, the tradition, that we have. It's not a big deal for them to wear some ugly uniforms that get 11th grade recruits all excited. But we're the Georgia Bulldogs. We aren't THEM.
I fear that Richt has decided he will pull out all stops this year in hopes of bringing back some hype to the program. But I think that would be misguided. I'm hoping that he's decided to bring back the TRADITION of the program. I hope that he's realized that winning and excellence trump showmanship every day of the week and twice on Sunday. When you say "Alabama" or you say "Texas," you don't think about hip jerseys, you think about what those names mean -- they mean success, tradition, prestige.
Speaking of Bama, I seem to remember the last time we wore different jerseys. Sure, we wore black jerseys against Auburn and Hawaii and won big. But they were inferior opponents. We then wore black jerseys against Alabama, and they made good on their promise to turn the game into a funeral.
I honestly believe that we are STILL recovering from that game. It was such a demoralizing experience. After starting out as the preseason #1, we were dominated in every facet of that game and it was obvious that we weren't just the inferior team that NIGHT, between those two TEAMS. We were beat so thoroughly that it was obvious we were a fraud, and light-years away from being a true title contender. Lest us not forget, Alabama didn't even win the SEC or the NC that year. Nope. After our blackout debacle, we were thoroughly destroyed by Florida on their way to another national championship.
We need to come out in our classic uniforms against Boise St. and proceed to administer a colossal beat down. Winning by 20 will do far more than any stupid uniform will.
After all, it's not the jerseys that make the team, it's the players wearing them.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Georgia Bulldogs in 2011 - Post #6
In the previous posts, I've taken micro-level looks at Georgia, so for this post I'm going to switch it up and take a more macro-level view: the 2011 schedule.
I'll go through each game and give a few knee-jerk thoughts regarding matchups, history, placement, etc. Should be fun.
At first glance, most notable is the fact that 2011 will have essentially 7 home games (if you count the season opener in the Georgia Dome). Additionally, all away games will be against teams that had a combined record of 18-32 in 2010.
September 3 - Boise State - Georgia Dome (Atlanta)
Wow, talk about a gamble. The pre-season buzz will be a welcome change from the shock and disgust of last year, but I'm sure there are many Dawgs fans that would have much rather stuck with and opening battle against Clemson.
There's a lot to say about this game, and I'm sure I'll look at it closer in August, but just a few thoughts for now.
KNEE-JERK: This will be a big spot for a Dawgs team that will probably feature some younger players at key positions. For most of those players, this will be the biggest game of their career. Add to that the fact many Richt teams have been slow starters. I'm worried we come out overwhelmed.
MATCHUPS: Boise is known for their trick plays, but they've been successful because they dominate the line of scrimmage. Boise will have strong lines on both sides of the ball. Georgia's O-line is in chaos due to Sturdivant suffering his third, season-ending knee injury. However, Georgia's D-line could be a force to be reckoned with. Will we gameplan accordingly?
September 10 - SOUTH CAROLINA
KNEE-JERK: South Carolina will probably be the best team Georgia plays all year, at least in Sanford Stadium. We'll have to load up against Lattimore, and hope they don't beat us through the air. This game could be a primer for the rest of the season as South Carolina will try to expose our weaknesses as all well-coached teams do.
HISTORY: The Ole Ball Coach has always had a special place in his heart for Georgia, that spot just happens to be filled with hatred and contempt. He's also managed to out-coach us the past two years, and probably should have won the last time he visited Athens. Georgia has rarely had a great season when it didn't beat the Gamecocks.
September 17 - COASTAL CAROLINA
KNEE-JERK: An easy win, but what will it mean? 3-0? 2-1? 1-2?
September 24 - Ole Miss
KNEE-JERK: Probably another easy win, and if so it will be an important one. The first road game for any team is always dangerous, and the chance to build confidence with a solid road win in the SEC early in the season will be much welcomed. Remember, Georgia lost on the road to South Carolina and Mississippi State early in the 2010 season. There was certainly more than one reason, but I think those early loses really crushed our confidence and lead to a lack of toughness that showed up against Colorado and other games.
October 1 - MISSISSIPPI STATE
KNEE-JERK: Can you say redemption game? I forgot how long it was since Georgia had lost to Mississippi State, but it was quite a while. How we play will really show the personality of the team, no matter what record we carry into this 5th game.
MATCHUP: Mullen certainly had Georgia's number during his time as Florida's OC, and beating us last year only boosted that trend. He's a solid coach, but his Bulldogs will be without wonder kid-coach Manny Diaz this time, and they won last year largely in part to their defensive performance instead of their offense.
October 8 - Tennessee
KNEE-JERK: Georgia handled Tennessee last year, and it's hard to see this game playing out any differently. Then again, we faced a largely non-Tyler Bray Tennessee, and they're a different team with him. Aside from being a game against a long-time rival, this game will have added importance even if Tennessee has another down year because I believe the East will again be won by a team with a minimum of 2 losses.
Wins in Knoxville never come easy, and the last time the Dawgs visited, well, I've tried to forget that particular afternoon.
October 15 - Vanderbilt
KNEE-JERK: Well, thank goodness for Vanderbilt football, right? But what will this game mean for the 2011 season? It will be another SEC win, and that's always a welcome sight.
October 22 - BYE
October 29 - Florida - Jacksonville, FL
KNEE-JERK: I don't care if Georgia goes into this game 3-3, we need a win against Florida like a fish needs the water. The Urban Meyer Era has come to an end, and thank God for that. Rare is the year when Georgia loses to Florida but still makes it to the SEC championship game. At this point, Georgia needs to win this game for enough reasons that would fill a phone book.
MATCHUP: Athletically, the teams will be pretty evenly matched. A slight edge is given to Florida, unless some of Georgia's 2011 class have made it onto the field by this time. It's rumored that Florida's D-line is much better than it's O-line. If that's the case, then we'll have something in common with those belly-draggers.
November 5 - NEW MEXICO STATE
KNEE-JERK: A win, of course. But what will will the implications be as we head into this game and then leave it behind? Will we be riding a 3 or 4 win-streak, or will limp in after another Jacksonville butt-whooping, making this win a small salve for our damaged ego?
November 12 - AUBURN
HISTORY: The Oldest Rivalry in the South. It doesn't get much better. I know many Georgia fans believe this is a sure-fire win, revenging a nasty loss on The Plains in 2010. Despite the fact Auburn only returns 6 starters from it's title team, I have a hard time believing this will be a no-brainer. Auburn has recruited well, and unlike many of my Dawg compatriots, I think Chizik is an excellent coach with both an eye for talent (players and coaches - see Malzahn, Gus) and an ability to motivate and get every ounce of ability out of his team (DC for two undefeated seasons, HC for one, 2 NC's).
MATCHUP: I actually think we'll matchup fairly well against Auburn. Our defensive weakness will be the secondary, and they won't have the QB or the WR's to exploit that. I do think the Auburn D will be improved this season, but in the end I think the difference will be that our offense is capable of scoring more points than theirs. Of course, this game has been full of freaky occurrences and has often seen the lesser team play its best game of the season, leaving town with a surprising win.
November 19 - KENTUCKY
HISTORY: Certainly not a notable history in terms of rivalry or epic games, but for whatever reason, Kentucky has become that SEC team that always finds a way to scare you. I start to point to the fact this is a home game as solace, but then I remember the game two years ago, and how much it hurt to watch Kentucky players picking leaves off the hedges in their victory celebration.
KNEE-JERK: This late in the season, it's really too hard to prognosticate that much. Georgia is the more talented team in nearly every aspect, but what if these two teams meet with 4 of 5 losses? Teams change over the course of a season.
November 26 - Georgia Tech
KNEE-JERK: Should be a win, and the sweet taste of beating those Techies never wanes.
MATCHUP: Paul Johnson's 3-year stint at Tech brought intrigue to this rivalry, to say the least. In '08, Tech beat us in Stanford Stadium, and they picked the hedges and put the twigs in their teeth like they'd just won a birth into the Rose Bowl. I had left Thanksgiving early to go watch the game, and sat through 4 hours of cold November rain to watch a second half collapse, in what was Stafford's and Moreno's last game in Stanford stadium. I still don't believe it happened, but my Tech buddy Jake reminds me.
In '09, we surprisingly took Tech behind the woodshed. Alas, the game proved to be an anomaly.
In '10, we won a far too close game, largely because Johnson out-coached Richt for the second time in three years.
Despite the apparent discrepancy in talent, I suspect this game will be a close one.
LOOSE PREDICTION FOR THE SEASON
Well, in my mind, there are two different scenarios.
The first - we go for broke, CMR plays a bunch of talented freshman at key positions, Bobo suffers a head injury and decides to get the ball to our playmakers, and the defense looks like those defenses of the early aughts.
The second - we solidify our position as a program that SHOULD win 10 games every other year, but instead finds a way to underperform and underwhelm. CMR remains "calm" despite losing 3 of the first 5, Bobo continues to be the worst play caller in his tax bracket, and the secondary lets people run wide open like a pop warner team wondering what snacks will be served at half time.
The first - we go 10-2 (losses to South Carolina and either Boise or Florida). Even with the loss to Carolina, we win the East because Carolina relies heavily on Lattimore due to QB flux, and he gets dinged up like he did last year. Florida won't lose less than 3 games because their schedule is tough and a new HC rarely loses less than 3 games regardless of what he inherits.
We meet Alabama in the SEC Championship and, well, at least we won the East.
The second - we go 7-5, with losses to Boise St., Florida, Mississippi St., and Auburn that further solidify our darkest fears -- CMR and company are perennial underachievers who are out-coached and beaten by inferior talent more often than a fat man craves doughnuts. The offensive line is a mess, Orson Charles goes weeks without catching more than 3 balls, and it becomes obvious that the program has hit it's plateau, and is on steadily on the way down.
The Prediction? Of course, somewhere in between. We go 9-3, with one bad loss (probably South Carolina), two close losses (probably Boise and Florida) and two impressive wins (Mississippi St. and Georgia Tech) that send us into bowl season with some optimism. CMR will return for the 2012 season, and then we do this whole thing all over again.
I'll go through each game and give a few knee-jerk thoughts regarding matchups, history, placement, etc. Should be fun.
At first glance, most notable is the fact that 2011 will have essentially 7 home games (if you count the season opener in the Georgia Dome). Additionally, all away games will be against teams that had a combined record of 18-32 in 2010.
September 3 - Boise State - Georgia Dome (Atlanta)
Wow, talk about a gamble. The pre-season buzz will be a welcome change from the shock and disgust of last year, but I'm sure there are many Dawgs fans that would have much rather stuck with and opening battle against Clemson.
There's a lot to say about this game, and I'm sure I'll look at it closer in August, but just a few thoughts for now.
KNEE-JERK: This will be a big spot for a Dawgs team that will probably feature some younger players at key positions. For most of those players, this will be the biggest game of their career. Add to that the fact many Richt teams have been slow starters. I'm worried we come out overwhelmed.
MATCHUPS: Boise is known for their trick plays, but they've been successful because they dominate the line of scrimmage. Boise will have strong lines on both sides of the ball. Georgia's O-line is in chaos due to Sturdivant suffering his third, season-ending knee injury. However, Georgia's D-line could be a force to be reckoned with. Will we gameplan accordingly?
September 10 - SOUTH CAROLINA
KNEE-JERK: South Carolina will probably be the best team Georgia plays all year, at least in Sanford Stadium. We'll have to load up against Lattimore, and hope they don't beat us through the air. This game could be a primer for the rest of the season as South Carolina will try to expose our weaknesses as all well-coached teams do.
HISTORY: The Ole Ball Coach has always had a special place in his heart for Georgia, that spot just happens to be filled with hatred and contempt. He's also managed to out-coach us the past two years, and probably should have won the last time he visited Athens. Georgia has rarely had a great season when it didn't beat the Gamecocks.
September 17 - COASTAL CAROLINA
KNEE-JERK: An easy win, but what will it mean? 3-0? 2-1? 1-2?
September 24 - Ole Miss
KNEE-JERK: Probably another easy win, and if so it will be an important one. The first road game for any team is always dangerous, and the chance to build confidence with a solid road win in the SEC early in the season will be much welcomed. Remember, Georgia lost on the road to South Carolina and Mississippi State early in the 2010 season. There was certainly more than one reason, but I think those early loses really crushed our confidence and lead to a lack of toughness that showed up against Colorado and other games.
October 1 - MISSISSIPPI STATE
KNEE-JERK: Can you say redemption game? I forgot how long it was since Georgia had lost to Mississippi State, but it was quite a while. How we play will really show the personality of the team, no matter what record we carry into this 5th game.
MATCHUP: Mullen certainly had Georgia's number during his time as Florida's OC, and beating us last year only boosted that trend. He's a solid coach, but his Bulldogs will be without wonder kid-coach Manny Diaz this time, and they won last year largely in part to their defensive performance instead of their offense.
October 8 - Tennessee
KNEE-JERK: Georgia handled Tennessee last year, and it's hard to see this game playing out any differently. Then again, we faced a largely non-Tyler Bray Tennessee, and they're a different team with him. Aside from being a game against a long-time rival, this game will have added importance even if Tennessee has another down year because I believe the East will again be won by a team with a minimum of 2 losses.
Wins in Knoxville never come easy, and the last time the Dawgs visited, well, I've tried to forget that particular afternoon.
October 15 - Vanderbilt
KNEE-JERK: Well, thank goodness for Vanderbilt football, right? But what will this game mean for the 2011 season? It will be another SEC win, and that's always a welcome sight.
October 22 - BYE
October 29 - Florida - Jacksonville, FL
KNEE-JERK: I don't care if Georgia goes into this game 3-3, we need a win against Florida like a fish needs the water. The Urban Meyer Era has come to an end, and thank God for that. Rare is the year when Georgia loses to Florida but still makes it to the SEC championship game. At this point, Georgia needs to win this game for enough reasons that would fill a phone book.
MATCHUP: Athletically, the teams will be pretty evenly matched. A slight edge is given to Florida, unless some of Georgia's 2011 class have made it onto the field by this time. It's rumored that Florida's D-line is much better than it's O-line. If that's the case, then we'll have something in common with those belly-draggers.
November 5 - NEW MEXICO STATE
KNEE-JERK: A win, of course. But what will will the implications be as we head into this game and then leave it behind? Will we be riding a 3 or 4 win-streak, or will limp in after another Jacksonville butt-whooping, making this win a small salve for our damaged ego?
November 12 - AUBURN
HISTORY: The Oldest Rivalry in the South. It doesn't get much better. I know many Georgia fans believe this is a sure-fire win, revenging a nasty loss on The Plains in 2010. Despite the fact Auburn only returns 6 starters from it's title team, I have a hard time believing this will be a no-brainer. Auburn has recruited well, and unlike many of my Dawg compatriots, I think Chizik is an excellent coach with both an eye for talent (players and coaches - see Malzahn, Gus) and an ability to motivate and get every ounce of ability out of his team (DC for two undefeated seasons, HC for one, 2 NC's).
MATCHUP: I actually think we'll matchup fairly well against Auburn. Our defensive weakness will be the secondary, and they won't have the QB or the WR's to exploit that. I do think the Auburn D will be improved this season, but in the end I think the difference will be that our offense is capable of scoring more points than theirs. Of course, this game has been full of freaky occurrences and has often seen the lesser team play its best game of the season, leaving town with a surprising win.
November 19 - KENTUCKY
HISTORY: Certainly not a notable history in terms of rivalry or epic games, but for whatever reason, Kentucky has become that SEC team that always finds a way to scare you. I start to point to the fact this is a home game as solace, but then I remember the game two years ago, and how much it hurt to watch Kentucky players picking leaves off the hedges in their victory celebration.
KNEE-JERK: This late in the season, it's really too hard to prognosticate that much. Georgia is the more talented team in nearly every aspect, but what if these two teams meet with 4 of 5 losses? Teams change over the course of a season.
November 26 - Georgia Tech
KNEE-JERK: Should be a win, and the sweet taste of beating those Techies never wanes.
MATCHUP: Paul Johnson's 3-year stint at Tech brought intrigue to this rivalry, to say the least. In '08, Tech beat us in Stanford Stadium, and they picked the hedges and put the twigs in their teeth like they'd just won a birth into the Rose Bowl. I had left Thanksgiving early to go watch the game, and sat through 4 hours of cold November rain to watch a second half collapse, in what was Stafford's and Moreno's last game in Stanford stadium. I still don't believe it happened, but my Tech buddy Jake reminds me.
In '09, we surprisingly took Tech behind the woodshed. Alas, the game proved to be an anomaly.
In '10, we won a far too close game, largely because Johnson out-coached Richt for the second time in three years.
Despite the apparent discrepancy in talent, I suspect this game will be a close one.
LOOSE PREDICTION FOR THE SEASON
Well, in my mind, there are two different scenarios.
The first - we go for broke, CMR plays a bunch of talented freshman at key positions, Bobo suffers a head injury and decides to get the ball to our playmakers, and the defense looks like those defenses of the early aughts.
The second - we solidify our position as a program that SHOULD win 10 games every other year, but instead finds a way to underperform and underwhelm. CMR remains "calm" despite losing 3 of the first 5, Bobo continues to be the worst play caller in his tax bracket, and the secondary lets people run wide open like a pop warner team wondering what snacks will be served at half time.
The first - we go 10-2 (losses to South Carolina and either Boise or Florida). Even with the loss to Carolina, we win the East because Carolina relies heavily on Lattimore due to QB flux, and he gets dinged up like he did last year. Florida won't lose less than 3 games because their schedule is tough and a new HC rarely loses less than 3 games regardless of what he inherits.
We meet Alabama in the SEC Championship and, well, at least we won the East.
The second - we go 7-5, with losses to Boise St., Florida, Mississippi St., and Auburn that further solidify our darkest fears -- CMR and company are perennial underachievers who are out-coached and beaten by inferior talent more often than a fat man craves doughnuts. The offensive line is a mess, Orson Charles goes weeks without catching more than 3 balls, and it becomes obvious that the program has hit it's plateau, and is on steadily on the way down.
The Prediction? Of course, somewhere in between. We go 9-3, with one bad loss (probably South Carolina), two close losses (probably Boise and Florida) and two impressive wins (Mississippi St. and Georgia Tech) that send us into bowl season with some optimism. CMR will return for the 2012 season, and then we do this whole thing all over again.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Georgia Bulldogs in 2011 - Post #3
In Post #3 I'll take a look at the QB position for Georgia heading into 2011.
Well, there's not much mystery here, is there? Aaron Murray had the best freshman season for a Georgia QB in as long as my memory can stretch back, and perhaps as far as the modern era is concerned.
A quick look back only brings one worthy comparison -- David Greene.
Greene led Georgia to an 8-4 record as a redshirt freshman. While the Greene years were of the best in recent memory, his freshman season was one of even-handed success. The Dawgs went 1-3 against ranked teams, with the sole win against #21 Georgia Tech. The famed "Hobnail Boot" game was against an unranked Tennessee team, but still a win against a big rival in a time when Tennessee's program was at it's peak.
As far as the win column goes, Greene had the better freshman season. But the '01 offense was drastically different than last year's version, and that is probably where the comparison stops.
While Greene some of Georgia's best years, Murray is hardly the care-taker that his long past predecessor was. Murray ranked among the best QB's in the country - let alone his fellow freshman signal callers - in virtually every category. He showed off a strong arm along with an ability to turn a busted play into something positive with his above average scrambling. Perhaps most importantly, I can't think of a single game in which Murray did more harm than good.
Looking ahead to 2011, the bar has been set pretty high. Murray will return as the best QB in the SEC, and should receive - albeit worthless - the preseason anointment of being 1st Team SEC. Granted, that may say more about the overall lack of a proven starter at virtually every other SEC contender, but do not be deceived, Murray has lived up to his billing as one of the most sought after HS recruits.
The truth of any prognostication regarding Murray's success in 2011 lies not in his abilities, but in those of his supporting cast. By far, Murray's favorite target in 2010 was AJ Green. Now that Green is gone, who will be Murray's go-to receiver? The offense all to often relied on Murray's arm due to a woeful lack of a respectable running game. Much hope has been placed on the anticipated arrival of super-recruit Isaiah Crowell, but the offensive line will have been remade over come September, and add to the mix a new O-line leader in Coach Friend, there is much mystery to sort out.
I suspect that Murray will not have the "sophomore slump" that I've seen others predict. 2011 will be his third year under the tutelage of Mike Bobo, and while I doubt I'll ever buy into Bobo as a big time OC, he is a proven QB coach. And truth be told, AJ Green or no, the 2010 offense was as one-dimmensional and flawed as the 2009 version. If everything besides Murray remains the status quo, I doubt his output will be even slightly diminished. I'm willing to offset Green's departure by Murray's continued maturation, and the the rest of the chips fall where they may.
Well, there's not much mystery here, is there? Aaron Murray had the best freshman season for a Georgia QB in as long as my memory can stretch back, and perhaps as far as the modern era is concerned.
A quick look back only brings one worthy comparison -- David Greene.
Greene led Georgia to an 8-4 record as a redshirt freshman. While the Greene years were of the best in recent memory, his freshman season was one of even-handed success. The Dawgs went 1-3 against ranked teams, with the sole win against #21 Georgia Tech. The famed "Hobnail Boot" game was against an unranked Tennessee team, but still a win against a big rival in a time when Tennessee's program was at it's peak.
As far as the win column goes, Greene had the better freshman season. But the '01 offense was drastically different than last year's version, and that is probably where the comparison stops.
While Greene some of Georgia's best years, Murray is hardly the care-taker that his long past predecessor was. Murray ranked among the best QB's in the country - let alone his fellow freshman signal callers - in virtually every category. He showed off a strong arm along with an ability to turn a busted play into something positive with his above average scrambling. Perhaps most importantly, I can't think of a single game in which Murray did more harm than good.
Looking ahead to 2011, the bar has been set pretty high. Murray will return as the best QB in the SEC, and should receive - albeit worthless - the preseason anointment of being 1st Team SEC. Granted, that may say more about the overall lack of a proven starter at virtually every other SEC contender, but do not be deceived, Murray has lived up to his billing as one of the most sought after HS recruits.
The truth of any prognostication regarding Murray's success in 2011 lies not in his abilities, but in those of his supporting cast. By far, Murray's favorite target in 2010 was AJ Green. Now that Green is gone, who will be Murray's go-to receiver? The offense all to often relied on Murray's arm due to a woeful lack of a respectable running game. Much hope has been placed on the anticipated arrival of super-recruit Isaiah Crowell, but the offensive line will have been remade over come September, and add to the mix a new O-line leader in Coach Friend, there is much mystery to sort out.
I suspect that Murray will not have the "sophomore slump" that I've seen others predict. 2011 will be his third year under the tutelage of Mike Bobo, and while I doubt I'll ever buy into Bobo as a big time OC, he is a proven QB coach. And truth be told, AJ Green or no, the 2010 offense was as one-dimmensional and flawed as the 2009 version. If everything besides Murray remains the status quo, I doubt his output will be even slightly diminished. I'm willing to offset Green's departure by Murray's continued maturation, and the the rest of the chips fall where they may.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Georgia Bulldogs in 2011 - Post #2
This post will look at the special teams play for Georgia in 2011.
The special teams were greatly improved in 2010, thanks largely in part to the change in coaching. It's been my understanding that Scott Lakatos is the ST coach, but let's be honest, not having Fabris and his affinity for pouch kick offs and liberal fair catch-calling-policy was the biggest reason for the improvement.
In 2010, Georgia ranked #4 in the nation in Net Punting, #2 in the SEC (only behind the team that must not be named). Without question, the good coverage played a big part in a great year, but let's be honest, this awesome performance was due almost entirely to the fabulous leg of Drew Butler.
Butler is probably the best punter Georgia has had in two decades. I'd argue he's had the strongest leg of any college punter in the past two years, and it should be a bit stronger this year. That leg power would be enough, but Butler also has superb touch and control, often dropping punts inside the 10. But that's not all, either. Most punters with Butler's strength kick the occasional line drive bullet that allows the returner to get a head start on the coverage. Butler's Net Punting numbers clearly show he doesn't have this problem.
Like Butler, Blair Walsh won the top award for his position after the 2009 season. Unlike Butler, Walsh dropped off a bit from his '09 numbers in 2010. I really can't think of a reason why this would be, so I won't offer an explanation. Kickers are notoriously finicky, and the margin for error is so slim that I won't entertain the argument that kickers aren't athletes because let me tell you, Bob, the amount of focus required to wrestle away the pressure in order to hit a tough kick is unlike most endeavors in sports. My guess is that Walsh will return to his '09 form this year.
However, the one thing that has always perplexed me is Walsh's occasional inability to send kickoffs into the endzone. In '09, I blamed it on Fabris who inexplicably preferred to pouch kick sometimes two times a game. '10 was better in that regard, but sometimes Walsh just seems like he can't get it back there, and I don't know what to make of that. He has a big leg, I've seen him hit 60 yd field goals in warm ups.
Our punt returning and kick returning continues to be underwhelming. Georgia ranked 31st overall in Punt Returning (5th in the SEC) and 74th overall in Kick Returning (9th in the SEC). I'm not sure if there's a good reason, but Richt has never seemed to put much stock in the return game. It's really a shame. One great return can be the turning point in a game, and Georgia has always had the athletes to produce (paging Branden Smith).
Even more inexplicable has been our penchant for foregoing our dangerous playmakers in favor of the 3rd string QB (thank God I'll never have to watch Logan Gray fair catch another punt) or instead trying to placate our superstars who are great but have no business catching punts (AJ Green).
All that being said, Brandon Boykin is a serious threat to take back any kick off, so I feel good about having him back there next year. I'd love to see him on punt returns more often, but he isn't as shifty as he is fast, which leads us to this: Where in the world has Branden Smith been?!
Smith is the fastest player on the team, and probably the best athlete though he hasn't put on the muscle that I thought he would. But if you are skeptical of his ability to make a big play, just watch some of those reverses we've ran with him the past two years. Though he's a bit indecisive (maybe why he hasn't returned more), when he turns up field he is an absolute blur. Every defender takes the wrong angle because of his unbelievable speed. He was dinged up a bit last year, but it'll virtually be a crime if we don't get him 4 touches a game in 2011. He make swing and miss on three, but all it will take is one huge play to swing the game in our favor.
We have some freaky talent coming in this fall, but a special teams mistake can kill your momentum. That's why I'd love to see Boykin and Smith, side by side on the goal line this year on kick returns. And if I had to pick between the two, I'd like to see Smith return punts. It's possible that the coaches have found that he doesn't have the hands to do it, but his speed requires a second look. I've never been a football coach, but if I had a guy that ran a sub 4.3 40, I'd have to give him a shot or two at a punt.
The special teams were greatly improved in 2010, thanks largely in part to the change in coaching. It's been my understanding that Scott Lakatos is the ST coach, but let's be honest, not having Fabris and his affinity for pouch kick offs and liberal fair catch-calling-policy was the biggest reason for the improvement.
In 2010, Georgia ranked #4 in the nation in Net Punting, #2 in the SEC (only behind the team that must not be named). Without question, the good coverage played a big part in a great year, but let's be honest, this awesome performance was due almost entirely to the fabulous leg of Drew Butler.
Butler is probably the best punter Georgia has had in two decades. I'd argue he's had the strongest leg of any college punter in the past two years, and it should be a bit stronger this year. That leg power would be enough, but Butler also has superb touch and control, often dropping punts inside the 10. But that's not all, either. Most punters with Butler's strength kick the occasional line drive bullet that allows the returner to get a head start on the coverage. Butler's Net Punting numbers clearly show he doesn't have this problem.
Like Butler, Blair Walsh won the top award for his position after the 2009 season. Unlike Butler, Walsh dropped off a bit from his '09 numbers in 2010. I really can't think of a reason why this would be, so I won't offer an explanation. Kickers are notoriously finicky, and the margin for error is so slim that I won't entertain the argument that kickers aren't athletes because let me tell you, Bob, the amount of focus required to wrestle away the pressure in order to hit a tough kick is unlike most endeavors in sports. My guess is that Walsh will return to his '09 form this year.
However, the one thing that has always perplexed me is Walsh's occasional inability to send kickoffs into the endzone. In '09, I blamed it on Fabris who inexplicably preferred to pouch kick sometimes two times a game. '10 was better in that regard, but sometimes Walsh just seems like he can't get it back there, and I don't know what to make of that. He has a big leg, I've seen him hit 60 yd field goals in warm ups.
Our punt returning and kick returning continues to be underwhelming. Georgia ranked 31st overall in Punt Returning (5th in the SEC) and 74th overall in Kick Returning (9th in the SEC). I'm not sure if there's a good reason, but Richt has never seemed to put much stock in the return game. It's really a shame. One great return can be the turning point in a game, and Georgia has always had the athletes to produce (paging Branden Smith).
Even more inexplicable has been our penchant for foregoing our dangerous playmakers in favor of the 3rd string QB (thank God I'll never have to watch Logan Gray fair catch another punt) or instead trying to placate our superstars who are great but have no business catching punts (AJ Green).
All that being said, Brandon Boykin is a serious threat to take back any kick off, so I feel good about having him back there next year. I'd love to see him on punt returns more often, but he isn't as shifty as he is fast, which leads us to this: Where in the world has Branden Smith been?!
Smith is the fastest player on the team, and probably the best athlete though he hasn't put on the muscle that I thought he would. But if you are skeptical of his ability to make a big play, just watch some of those reverses we've ran with him the past two years. Though he's a bit indecisive (maybe why he hasn't returned more), when he turns up field he is an absolute blur. Every defender takes the wrong angle because of his unbelievable speed. He was dinged up a bit last year, but it'll virtually be a crime if we don't get him 4 touches a game in 2011. He make swing and miss on three, but all it will take is one huge play to swing the game in our favor.
We have some freaky talent coming in this fall, but a special teams mistake can kill your momentum. That's why I'd love to see Boykin and Smith, side by side on the goal line this year on kick returns. And if I had to pick between the two, I'd like to see Smith return punts. It's possible that the coaches have found that he doesn't have the hands to do it, but his speed requires a second look. I've never been a football coach, but if I had a guy that ran a sub 4.3 40, I'd have to give him a shot or two at a punt.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Georgia Bulldogs in 2011
Ok, I'm having serious college football withdrawals, so this will be the first in a series of musings that I will post during the offseason. I'll probably post infrequently, as there's only so much you can postulate. But it should be fun and a good reference point for when the season is in swing. I'll see if I was right with my predictions and/or if Georgia is able to address the things my admittedly non-football savvy mind can identify. Lezgo!
Topic #1 - Will Georgia's offense be consistent in 2011 because of/in spite of Coach Bobo?
Studying Georgia's offensive production in 2010 is a prime example of how simple statistics can be misleading. Georgia ranked in the top 40 in most offensive statistical categories, whether it was yards per game or points per game. Many people cited this as support for Bobo and the offense, and reverted to the "give Grantham and the D another year to develop" argument. Look a little closer, and you'll find that we ran the score up on bad teams and didn't do squat against the good ones. Stats can be useful, but primarily subscribe to the "eye ball test." Simply put, we didn't pass that test.
Much has been said about our S&C issues, and for good reason, but I think the major issue was schematic. For the majority of Bobo's tenure, we've been predictable and relatively unwilling to adapt to our personnel.
Being predictable is never good, and I don't think I have to pen much in support of that argument. You can't fool the defense on every play, but if they know where you're going, they have a better chance at stopping you than you do beating them. There are a host of things that have to go right on every single play for an offense to be successful, but all the defense has to do is have one guy be in the right place to blow up the play.
Adapting to personell is more complicated issue. Good teams have identities, and it's smart to stick to what you do best. But there in lies the rub, if you want to stick to your identity, you have to recruit players that excel in that role. If you don't have those players, you have to implement a scheme that utilizes their strengths. Unfortunately, Georgia has done neither.
2008 appears to disprove Bobo's schematic flaw, but the truth is that team had a veteran defense that created turnovers and often gave the offense a short field.
Looking ahead to 2011, there are many reasons to be skeptical. Murray returns and, if he improves, will be the best QB in the SEC. Crowell, even if he struggles at times, will be an improvement at RB and will give us the big play threat at that position that we haven't had since Moreno.
But the offensive line will have new additions, and even if those are improvements as well, for some time now the O-line hasn't been the kind of force that you need to win 10 games.
Clearly, the biggest lose will be AJ Green. For the past two years, we've had only one player that legitimately scared D coordinators, and now that player is gone.
Marlon Brown should step up (I think the notion that he was lost in Green's shadow has some merit), but even if he does, Green is a once in a generation talent that can't be easily replaced.
If you concede the point that Bobo hasn't been great in his time as OC, then the major question is this: can Bobo develop as an OC?
The offense has to be more balanced and unpredictable. In addition to that, it has to start winning the line of scrimmage on 85% of the plays. Too often in the past two years has our QB had to evade pressure or our RB get hit either at the line or only a few yards past it. If Georgia's offense is to succeed (And I fear that while the D will improve, it will still experience hiccups. More on that later.), then it will have to do the aforementioned things.
My gut tells me that even with the loss of Green, Bobo will make changes, Richt will influence the scheme, and the new S&C program will be evident in many ways. However, while I do think 2011 will reveal a better offense, I still think we'll struggle at times against the better defenses.
We'll see two of those quite early. How the offense performs against Boise St. and South Carolina will be indicative of what the rest of the season holds. Impress in those games, and 2011 could follow the "Dream Team" with a dream season. But if we see the same old predictability and schematic deficiencies, then we'll finish 8-4 at best.
Topic #1 - Will Georgia's offense be consistent in 2011 because of/in spite of Coach Bobo?
Studying Georgia's offensive production in 2010 is a prime example of how simple statistics can be misleading. Georgia ranked in the top 40 in most offensive statistical categories, whether it was yards per game or points per game. Many people cited this as support for Bobo and the offense, and reverted to the "give Grantham and the D another year to develop" argument. Look a little closer, and you'll find that we ran the score up on bad teams and didn't do squat against the good ones. Stats can be useful, but primarily subscribe to the "eye ball test." Simply put, we didn't pass that test.
Much has been said about our S&C issues, and for good reason, but I think the major issue was schematic. For the majority of Bobo's tenure, we've been predictable and relatively unwilling to adapt to our personnel.
Being predictable is never good, and I don't think I have to pen much in support of that argument. You can't fool the defense on every play, but if they know where you're going, they have a better chance at stopping you than you do beating them. There are a host of things that have to go right on every single play for an offense to be successful, but all the defense has to do is have one guy be in the right place to blow up the play.
Adapting to personell is more complicated issue. Good teams have identities, and it's smart to stick to what you do best. But there in lies the rub, if you want to stick to your identity, you have to recruit players that excel in that role. If you don't have those players, you have to implement a scheme that utilizes their strengths. Unfortunately, Georgia has done neither.
2008 appears to disprove Bobo's schematic flaw, but the truth is that team had a veteran defense that created turnovers and often gave the offense a short field.
Looking ahead to 2011, there are many reasons to be skeptical. Murray returns and, if he improves, will be the best QB in the SEC. Crowell, even if he struggles at times, will be an improvement at RB and will give us the big play threat at that position that we haven't had since Moreno.
But the offensive line will have new additions, and even if those are improvements as well, for some time now the O-line hasn't been the kind of force that you need to win 10 games.
Clearly, the biggest lose will be AJ Green. For the past two years, we've had only one player that legitimately scared D coordinators, and now that player is gone.
Marlon Brown should step up (I think the notion that he was lost in Green's shadow has some merit), but even if he does, Green is a once in a generation talent that can't be easily replaced.
If you concede the point that Bobo hasn't been great in his time as OC, then the major question is this: can Bobo develop as an OC?
The offense has to be more balanced and unpredictable. In addition to that, it has to start winning the line of scrimmage on 85% of the plays. Too often in the past two years has our QB had to evade pressure or our RB get hit either at the line or only a few yards past it. If Georgia's offense is to succeed (And I fear that while the D will improve, it will still experience hiccups. More on that later.), then it will have to do the aforementioned things.
My gut tells me that even with the loss of Green, Bobo will make changes, Richt will influence the scheme, and the new S&C program will be evident in many ways. However, while I do think 2011 will reveal a better offense, I still think we'll struggle at times against the better defenses.
We'll see two of those quite early. How the offense performs against Boise St. and South Carolina will be indicative of what the rest of the season holds. Impress in those games, and 2011 could follow the "Dream Team" with a dream season. But if we see the same old predictability and schematic deficiencies, then we'll finish 8-4 at best.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
5 Best Songs of 2010
2010 was a pretty good year for music, and as promised, I'm reprising my "Top 5 Songs" and in lieu of the Grammys. Without further ado ...
5. Eminem (Ft. Rihanna) - "Love The Way You Lie"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uelHwf8o7_U
Welcome back, Marshall Mathers.
Eminem once rhymed that the world feels empty without him, and I gotta say he's right. "Recovery" was a better album than "Relapse" in my opinion. Eminem is a different person now than he was in the late 90s and early Aughts, so to wait around for more songs like those is just a waste of time. Younger Eminem was probably better than Mature Eminem, but I think he's made peace with the things that made him so shockingly edgy and profane, and so his music was sure to change.
I think he's the best rapper of his generation, and I've always thought he was fantastic. This song is full of the volcanic anger and hunger for a second chance at making things right that made his earlier work so tremendous.
4. The National - "Bloodbuzz Ohio"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfySK7CLEEg&feature=player_embedded#at=16
I remember the first time I heard The National. It was freshman year, a time of awakening both of self and of music. The National sounded like nothing I had ever heard before, Matt Berninger's tender baritone reciting words of unmistakeable meaning (isn't that refreshing?), a collection of skilled musicians (they all have advanced degrees in music), a confidence it what kind of band they are instead of just one with a lot of skill but no sense of direction.
The rub lies in what they actually are, or at least in what their songs are meant to accomplish. Their songs are about white collar numbness, about the moment when your youthful hopefulness realizes it's been sold empty promises, about coming to terms that there are some problems age and wisdom will never solve.
"Bloodbuzz Ohio" is no different, and it's one of The National's best efforts. We get the notion of a failed relationship, one in which the fact it was your fault is clear. Whether you messed it up somehow or you got stuck with someone you didn't love any more, time is terrible in how it only allows you to remember the times when it was good when you take stock of why you were the reason it ended. No matter your reasons at the time, second guessing is always easier when it was you who made the choice. It's worse when you grow to think of a place and that person in the same way.
John Greenleaf Whittier wrote: "Of all the sad words to flow from tongue or pen, the saddest are these: It might have been."
3. Mumford and Sons - "The Cave"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KkUeRPjc-Y
If you haven't ridden with your friends with the windows down, blaring "Little Lion Man" and trying to scream the lyrics over the speakers and sounds of the freeway, well then what in the world have you been waiting for!?
"The Cave", on the other hand, is the best song of their seminal album and earns that acclaim in more ways that one. The lyrics, song beautifully by Marcus Mumford, are better than most poetry these days. The rhythm makes you want to get up and stomp out a dance or go sprinting into the day (either are appropriate). The banjo just shreds. There's a banjo for goodness sakes!
This young band's star shines brighter than most.
2. Temper Trap - "Sweet Disposition"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C8e7nNLZNs
I know, I know. "Sweet Disposition" was loosed upon planet Earth in 2008, but it took two years before it truly made its way to the States. And did it ever. I think I lost count of how many movies, TV shows, and commercials felt compelled to use this tune. It is as awesome as it was ubiquitous, and that's hard to attain. (I'm looking at you, Lady Antebellum. I guess just being ubiquitous will win you a Grammy since actually being awesome has apparently become optional.)
There's absolutely not one misstep in this entire track. Dougy Mandagi's falsetto lifts us up into somewhere in the stratosphere, and it's then that we realize that the lyrics could just as easily be about a man deceiving himself into thinking his "young blood" will let him never surrender as it is about a young man with lightning flowing through his veins. The dueling drums and bass are what truly drive the song from start to finish, and it's rare that the rhythm section is the poison and not the needle. It's also a nearly foolproof indication that you're listening to a band of musicians, instead of performers.
As glorious as it is, I've often wondered if the band has realized they'll probably never write a more perfect song.
1. Arcade Fire - "We Used to Wait"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nTjn1yJp0w
I still know many people who have never even heard of Arcade Fire, and I guess that's understandable. Their debut album, "Funeral," of a few years ago was probably the best debut album of the past 15 years. Nonetheless, it came in the midst of the indie rock explosion, and while it was certainly a primary player in that movement, many other worthy indie albums were taking up air time and ear space.
And then came this year's "The Suburbs." It won't win album of the year at the Grammys, but make no mistake, "The Suburbs" is the best of them all. True to the album's concept (and Arcade Fire's overarching theme), "We Used to Wait" is about suffocating in suburban sprawl, somewhere in between the grandeur of the city and the allure of the wilderness.
The repetitively tapping piano creates a building crescendo that Win Butler's perfectly thin voice matches step for step until they both explode into drums and oooo's telling us "we used wait."
Butler tells us that sometimes what we waited for never came, that we end up just stuck moving through the days. Our lives can seem to change fast when we aren't ready, and probably in spite or ourselves. Because the tragic part is most of the waiting on something was only made possible by the catalyst that was our own failure to put the lives we longed for into motion, to send the letters we wrote.
If you haven't listened to this band, you're only doing yourself a disservice. Because if they didn't announce themselves before, consider this album their formal greeting. They're here to stay.
5. Eminem (Ft. Rihanna) - "Love The Way You Lie"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uelHwf8o7_U
Welcome back, Marshall Mathers.
Eminem once rhymed that the world feels empty without him, and I gotta say he's right. "Recovery" was a better album than "Relapse" in my opinion. Eminem is a different person now than he was in the late 90s and early Aughts, so to wait around for more songs like those is just a waste of time. Younger Eminem was probably better than Mature Eminem, but I think he's made peace with the things that made him so shockingly edgy and profane, and so his music was sure to change.
I think he's the best rapper of his generation, and I've always thought he was fantastic. This song is full of the volcanic anger and hunger for a second chance at making things right that made his earlier work so tremendous.
4. The National - "Bloodbuzz Ohio"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfySK7CLEEg&feature=player_embedded#at=16
I remember the first time I heard The National. It was freshman year, a time of awakening both of self and of music. The National sounded like nothing I had ever heard before, Matt Berninger's tender baritone reciting words of unmistakeable meaning (isn't that refreshing?), a collection of skilled musicians (they all have advanced degrees in music), a confidence it what kind of band they are instead of just one with a lot of skill but no sense of direction.
The rub lies in what they actually are, or at least in what their songs are meant to accomplish. Their songs are about white collar numbness, about the moment when your youthful hopefulness realizes it's been sold empty promises, about coming to terms that there are some problems age and wisdom will never solve.
"Bloodbuzz Ohio" is no different, and it's one of The National's best efforts. We get the notion of a failed relationship, one in which the fact it was your fault is clear. Whether you messed it up somehow or you got stuck with someone you didn't love any more, time is terrible in how it only allows you to remember the times when it was good when you take stock of why you were the reason it ended. No matter your reasons at the time, second guessing is always easier when it was you who made the choice. It's worse when you grow to think of a place and that person in the same way.
John Greenleaf Whittier wrote: "Of all the sad words to flow from tongue or pen, the saddest are these: It might have been."
3. Mumford and Sons - "The Cave"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KkUeRPjc-Y
If you haven't ridden with your friends with the windows down, blaring "Little Lion Man" and trying to scream the lyrics over the speakers and sounds of the freeway, well then what in the world have you been waiting for!?
"The Cave", on the other hand, is the best song of their seminal album and earns that acclaim in more ways that one. The lyrics, song beautifully by Marcus Mumford, are better than most poetry these days. The rhythm makes you want to get up and stomp out a dance or go sprinting into the day (either are appropriate). The banjo just shreds. There's a banjo for goodness sakes!
This young band's star shines brighter than most.
2. Temper Trap - "Sweet Disposition"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C8e7nNLZNs
I know, I know. "Sweet Disposition" was loosed upon planet Earth in 2008, but it took two years before it truly made its way to the States. And did it ever. I think I lost count of how many movies, TV shows, and commercials felt compelled to use this tune. It is as awesome as it was ubiquitous, and that's hard to attain. (I'm looking at you, Lady Antebellum. I guess just being ubiquitous will win you a Grammy since actually being awesome has apparently become optional.)
There's absolutely not one misstep in this entire track. Dougy Mandagi's falsetto lifts us up into somewhere in the stratosphere, and it's then that we realize that the lyrics could just as easily be about a man deceiving himself into thinking his "young blood" will let him never surrender as it is about a young man with lightning flowing through his veins. The dueling drums and bass are what truly drive the song from start to finish, and it's rare that the rhythm section is the poison and not the needle. It's also a nearly foolproof indication that you're listening to a band of musicians, instead of performers.
As glorious as it is, I've often wondered if the band has realized they'll probably never write a more perfect song.
1. Arcade Fire - "We Used to Wait"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nTjn1yJp0w
I still know many people who have never even heard of Arcade Fire, and I guess that's understandable. Their debut album, "Funeral," of a few years ago was probably the best debut album of the past 15 years. Nonetheless, it came in the midst of the indie rock explosion, and while it was certainly a primary player in that movement, many other worthy indie albums were taking up air time and ear space.
And then came this year's "The Suburbs." It won't win album of the year at the Grammys, but make no mistake, "The Suburbs" is the best of them all. True to the album's concept (and Arcade Fire's overarching theme), "We Used to Wait" is about suffocating in suburban sprawl, somewhere in between the grandeur of the city and the allure of the wilderness.
The repetitively tapping piano creates a building crescendo that Win Butler's perfectly thin voice matches step for step until they both explode into drums and oooo's telling us "we used wait."
Butler tells us that sometimes what we waited for never came, that we end up just stuck moving through the days. Our lives can seem to change fast when we aren't ready, and probably in spite or ourselves. Because the tragic part is most of the waiting on something was only made possible by the catalyst that was our own failure to put the lives we longed for into motion, to send the letters we wrote.
If you haven't listened to this band, you're only doing yourself a disservice. Because if they didn't announce themselves before, consider this album their formal greeting. They're here to stay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)