Dahobbs

Florida looking like us in the redzone. Turnovers. Penalties. Missed plays. But they've made FGs, so better than us I guess.

Ok, Barron's hoodie is fucking awesome.

Get bent.

Rotating Arch in the redzone is almost certainly a good idea. We aren't fixing the problems with our interior line or our inside run game. It is a personnel problem (they aren't bad, but not suited to what we are asking them to do there). A run threat at QB stresses the defense and should alleviate some of our problems there. Quinn isn't necessarily causing our redzone woes, but he also doesn't have any treatment for them. Arch can at least act a band aid until we can make larger personnel or schematic changes.

Bond runs an out, Quinn appears to expect him to keep going. That is a timing throw where QB and receiver have to be on the same page. I don't think Quinn misses it in the sense that he just fucks up the throw. I think either he expected a deeper out or expected Bond to keep going up field. We'd have to know our route options and reads there to know who messed up. Again, I think this is another example of lack of reps our receivers and QB have together. People are really underestimating the effect that has had on our offense this year.

It is so weird how mundane comments about the strengths and weaknesses of other players = "shitting on them" and how saying "Quinn is a pussy" is supposed to be taken as neutral and objective commentary. We have good players. Some are uber talented, but lack experience (Wingo). Some are uber talented, but have been hurt (Bond). Some have been rock solid replacements (Golden and Helm). Some have talent, but with a skill set that isn't necessarily ideal for our core offense as designed (Wisener and Blue, specifically in regards to inside zone). Some have been steadily upping their game with more room to grow (Moore and to a lesser extent Bolden). We have limitations on offense because Quinn isn't great a the deep ball, has limited mobility right now (although much better than it has been). We have limitations on offense because our receivers and Quinn haven't had a ton of experience together and as a result aren't always on the same page (Bond running different routes against A&M, Helm not ready for the hot pass against A&M, Quinn and Moore not on the same page on where the slot fade should be run). We have limitations on offense because our inside lineman aren't maulers and rely on shielding rather than displacement. We have a limitations on offense because we have only one running back that is decent at pass protection. We have limitations on offense because we only have one TE that is decent at blocking. All of these players have other traits that are really good. But, this particularly set of traits just hasn't melded well within our scheme. That's a bit on Sark, a bit bad luck due to injury, and a bit everyone on offense needing to up their game. Arch brings a different set of traits to the game that I think may help some of the pieces work better together, especially compared to injured Quinn. But bringing him in will also disrupt the things we do have working well. Personally, I think Arch should have started against OU and Georgia1. Quinn clearly wasn't healthy at all in those games. I think rushing him back has caused all sorts of other problems. And now it is a bit difficult to get Arch more involved in the playoffs. I also think we should have been resting Bond against Kentucky, A&M and Georgia2. He just hasn't been useful out there in his state. But with Cook gone, we may not have had another choice.

That can happen. But it isn't what happened in our game. Y'all are acting like the offense didn't drive all game. We had the ball for 20 minutes in the first half. Yet Georgia was able to move the chains immediately and consistently in the second half working off QB run. I have little doubt that the defense continues to shut Georgia down if Beck keeps playing. But the backup came in presenting enough of a wrinkle that we hadn't prepared for to let Georgia burn clock. That's what happened on defense. And it isn't like we haven't seen our vulnerability to that style of run heavy game play before. We saw it against Vanderbilt and MSU. Now, had the offense been better had converting its first half yardage success into points, then Georgia couldn't have relied on the same game plan to play catchup. But that's a separate issue.

The defense had plenty of rest in the first half. It had plenty of rest at half time before giving up a 75 yard drive. And it had plenty of rest after our 75 yard drive before immediately giving up a 9 minute back breaker of a drive. The offense wasn't to blame for the defenses struggles in the second half. Your point is true generally. It just doesn't apply to that specific game.

That was bad call on the review. I'd like to see that one explained. It is the same rule that applied to Arch's touchdown against aggy. Touch pylon or endzone in bounds and the goal line extends. Cal got robbed.

That's a TD by rule. He had a foot in the endzone so goal line extends.

The defense played great overall. But the reason it struggled (comparatively) in the second half had nothing to do with the offense. It struggled to address to the QB run combined with Etienne and the Georgia oline upping their game. That's it. You're trying too hard to blame that aspect of the game on Quinn. Not everything bad is his fault.

Yeah, like his name!

It was a really nice move.

Did you watch the game? Georgia went on a 75 yard drive to start the second half. That isn't on the offense. That isn't because of short fields. That isn't because the defense is tired. Then, after we went on a 75 yard TD drive of our own, the defense immediately surrenders 16 play, 72 yard drive that gives Georgia a lead. This is a stupid discussion. Y'all are fucking idiots.

Stop trolling.