This should make you feel better

[AlaCowboy]

The loss of Jenkins will make a big difference. Georgia will still run a 3-4 occasionally, but will also shift to a 4-3 and add a couple of defensive tackles to the mix. There will be more inside run blitzes to slow down any straight ahead running game, but that will open up the corners if your offense can adapy and audible a quick pitch.

Georgia actually ran a 4-3 about 30% of the time last season, so that will be an option.

 

[lo country]

I am not buying into this SEC is the end all BS. They can be beat. Baker was a good DT for us. I don't care how "good" you are, losing a starter, who is 2nd all SEC team is going to hurt.

Who all has UGA beat? FL and who? Lost to Bama, USC, struggled with KY and UT.

By some accounts on this board, we should just forfeit and go home. Save our guys from being hurt by the big bad SEC.

 

[CockInYourEar]

LOL, the loss of one player on UGA's defensive front isnt going to magically make their defense collapse. We will still be lucky to keep this game within 3 TDs IMHO.

Nebraska losing one player on it's defensive front killed our defense against Wiscy. I don't think the importance of a dominant NT should be underestimated.

^This. UGA runs the 3-4 most of the time, and they've been blessed to have two huge NT's to do it. Now they are down to 1, and he can't go the whole game. They'll switch sum to the 4-3, but then they are going to have to pull Geathers to do that and play 2 DT's without as much playing time. It's worth saying again, the absence of a star NT is devastating to 3-4 defense that already struggled against the run and is going up against a "favor the run" team.

Look how UGA did against USC and Kentucky, who have mobile QB's. The starting QB's avg'd over 5 yards a carry and most other rushers avg'd over 4 yards a carry, including Kent's backup QB.

 

[KC Cowboy]

Lo Country, that was great! The SEC is not that spectacular, and heck, if you compare SEC linemen vs. B1G linemen, it's pretty darn even. They get us on the speed part.

 

[VectorVictor]

LOL, the loss of one player on UGA's defensive front isnt going to magically make their defense collapse. We will still be lucky to keep this game within 3 TDs IMHO.

Nebraska losing one player on it's defensive front killed our defense against Wiscy. I don't think the importance of a dominant NT should be underestimated.

^This. UGA runs the 3-4 most of the time, and they've been blessed to have two huge NT's to do it. Now they are down to 1, and he can't go the whole game. They'll switch sum to the 4-3, but then they are going to have to pull Geathers to do that and play 2 DT's without as much playing time. It's worth saying again, the absence of a star NT is devastating to 3-4 defense that already struggled against the run and is going up against a "favor the run" team.

Look how UGA did against USC and Kentucky, who have mobile QB's. The starting QB's avg'd over 5 yards a carry and most other rushers avg'd over 4 yards a carry, including Kent's backup QB.

CiyE, you make excellent points, but last I checked, Nebraska was eviscerated by a 7-5 Wisconsin team that was playing a senior third string QB.

Georgia can simply run jet sweeps all day long and just tell their kids to fall down and eat clock to keep their defense off the field. Sure, Georgia only wins by 20 instead of 50, but a win is a win is a win, right?

 

[billdozer15]

LOL, the loss of one player on UGA's defensive front isnt going to magically make their defense collapse. We will still be lucky to keep this game within 3 TDs IMHO.

Nebraska losing one player on it's defensive front killed our defense against Wiscy. I don't think the importance of a dominant NT should be underestimated.

This^. Baker hurt us tremendously. Like Crick the year before, Fonzie in the secondary etc.....

You cant seriously think the loss of Crick is the reason Wisc put 70 on us..........Yes lossing Baker hurt but Wisc still would have kicked our ace even with Baker. You dont give up 70 points because 1 player wasnt able to play. We give up 70 points because we got outcoached and our players quit.

UGA losing one NT isnt going to make the difference in this game.

 

[KC Cowboy]

You dont give up 70 points because 1 player wasnt able to play. We give up 70 points because we got outcoached and our players quit.

UGA losing one NT isnt going to make the difference in this game.

False. Look at Kansas St. They lose their stud d-back, and boom, Baylor throws 52 points at them. Before Baylor, the most points they gave up was 30 to Oklahoma St. They played stout D all year, and when a lynchpin player goes out, it starts the dominoes falling.

Yes, our players quit near the end, but it all started with our 1 weakness getting worse, leading to have to move over a DE to DT making that position weaker, then moving the LBs up to help with the weak line, in turn the DBs move up and play more man-coverage, etc, etc. Our one player being out made the whole defense considerably worse.

 

[EZ-E]

This would be scary if they ever would have used them together. They could have placed 640 pounds of brute force in at DT. Dear Christ.

 

[KC Cowboy]

Hypothetical: you put in Suh when Baker went out. Then our D gives up 21 pts, tops, against Wisky. Now tell me "one player" doesn't make a difference...

 

[JJ Husker]

You dont give up 70 points because 1 player wasnt able to play. We give up 70 points because we got outcoached and our players quit.

UGA losing one NT isnt going to make the difference in this game.

False. Look at Kansas St. They lose their stud d-back, and boom, Baylor throws 52 points at them. Before Baylor, the most points they gave up was 30 to Oklahoma St. They played stout D all year, and when a lynchpin player goes out, it starts the dominoes falling.

Yes, our players quit near the end, but it all started with our 1 weakness getting worse, leading to have to move over a DE to DT making that position weaker, then moving the LBs up to help with the weak line, in turn the DBs move up and play more man-coverage, etc, etc. Our one player being out made the whole defense considerably worse.

I agree with this chain of thought; that changing one position from a dominating player to someone who is not very good will affect the whole team greatly. Of course other aspects contribute but I've seen it happen enough to know that you are only as strong as your weakest link. (unless the opponent fails to take advantage of that weak link) Problem is, I've seen the Huskers fail to attack that weak link and I doubt Richt will make that mistake. However, I don't think their backup NT is their weakest link. If he is, we're probably in trouble.