Georgia versus Vanderbilt: Now That Was a Fun Game to Watch

For the first time in several weeks, I was able to sit down and really focus on a football game. I'm glad it was Georgia versus Vanderbilt. It showed me so much I'd never seen before. After reviewing all my notes, I wondered how I would ever compile them all into a coherent posting. Here's what I came up with:

Opening Conversation

Just before the kickoff, the conversation in the living room went like this:
Me:  "Blair Walsh is wearing black socks."
Lawson:  "So?"
Me: "Are all the players wearing black socks?"
Blair Walsh kicks the ball and the game begins.
Lawson: "Who cares what color socks they're wearing?"
Me: "I do. Black socks with silver britches makes the players look like retirees."
Lawson:  "How?"
Me: "Because they're wearing black socks!"

I think that was the moment Stephen got up and got a beer.

More about the socks later. For now, I want to make an observation about...

Coaching
Fox Sports South had a survey going on during the first half of the game:  Who has done the best coaching job in the SEC East? The choices were Will Muschamp (Florida), Steve Spurrier (South Carolina), Derek Dooley (Tennessee), James Franklin (Vanderbilt), and Mark Richt. Announcers posted the results during the third quarter, and respondents to the survey overwhelmingly chose Mark Richt. He got 81% of the votes.

Really?

After all the complaints about last year's season and all the talk since Labor Day about whether Richt should be polishing up his resume, sports fans last night still thought he's done the best coaching job in the SEC East? I find that hard to believe. Stephen made a good point. The survey took place during a Georgia-Vanderbilt game, so the only people calling in would be either Georgia or Vanderbilt fans. But still, most of the people complaining about Richt over the last twelve months have been Georgia fans. I guess most of us have changed our minds. I didn't call in a vote, but I'm not so sure I would have voted for Richt last night. Here's why:

I saw only one gutsy move last night on Georgia's part:  the wildcat play inthe first quarter (more about that later). Other than that, the only difference I saw in the Dawgs' performance was that it wasn't the Isaiah Crowell show. In fact, he sat out the whole first quarter (more on that later too), and other players got more field time. As a result, Tavarres King, Orson Charles, Marlon Brown, and even Richard Samuel got to show their stuff a little more. But other than that, the Dawgs' strategy seemed to be same ole same ole. By the fourth quarter, Georgia had just gotten sloppy, letting their score creep up three points at a time with field goals, and they really put themselves in jeopardy by allowing Vanderbilt to run 95 yards to a touchdown. And in the first quarter, Georgia had so many holes in its defense it looked like Swiss cheese. I'm not sure I'd credit Mark Richt for the best coaching job in the SEC East after that display.

But then look at James Franklin's team and all the sneaky little moves they pulled: faking a punt, passing the ball behind the back, blocking Blair Walsh's kick in the fourth quarter. Vanderbilt may not have won, but they came close, and they tried all kinds of creative plays in the process. Somebody coached them to do that. Hmm.

New Football Knowledge

I've also learned some things about football I didn't know before. For instance, right after a beautiful pass interception, preventing Vandy's score, Brandon Boykin and Aaron Murray switched places, something Lawson said was a wildcat play. The center snaps directly to the running back so he can run the ball down the field. Fair enough, but I think the wildcat play is more effective when it works. This one didn't. Stephen says it's because the offensive line isn't used to hearing Boykin call out the play; they're used to Murray. Well, if a different voice is going to confuse the offense that much, what is the point of the wildcat play? I'd like some commentary from my readers, please.

And here's a penalty I'd never heard of: substitution infraction. It's when the team has twelve members in the huddle when the huddle breaks. Twice I saw officials counting heads on the field, once counting red helmets, and the other time counting black helmets. Apparently, a team can have twelve men in a huddle, but there can only be eleven men once the huddle breaks. So that means at a point in the game each team forgot to do roll call before breaking into formation. And I can't say as I blame them. They've got enough to worry about on that field before having to stop and say, "Wait. How many men are here?" It seems to me that as long as only eleven guys are lined up before the snap, everything's chicken. Who cares when the twelfth guy runs to the sideline? But that's just me.My readership may disagree or feel inclined to clarify for me.

Football Fashion

Now back to the players' uniforms:

No.

Yes.

No. Well, not usually.

As you read above, I was taken aback by Blair Walsh's black socks. They seemed so...I don't know...so Fort Lauderdale First Methodist Church Bingo Night. But my problem wasn't so much Walsh's sock/shoe combination as it was the lack of uniformity on the team. Some players wore black socks; others wore white socks. Some players wore black socks with white shoes; others wore white socks with black shoes. It seems to me that if the Georgia Bulldogs can motivate Nike to give them brand new uniforms to wear in the season opener (although thank God those rags went back into the closet after that game), they can also inspire someone--Nike, New Balance, Reebok, somebody--to give them shoes and socks that all look alike. As the second diagram above shows, the socks should be black. But the diagram omits the shoes. I think black shoes and black socks will complement the silver britches well, but so would white shoes and white socks. But white shoes and black socks? Not so much. 

But the socks were nothing when contrasted against the pink wrist bands many (but not all)  players wore to show their support of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Even Mark Richt wore the pink accessories. Now, I realize I'm skating on thin ice when I say this, but those pink wrist bands look bad with the University of Georgia uniforms. They look even worse when those wrist bands are worn on players' knees (I saw several of those too). While I admire the team's willingness to show their support of Susan Komen for the Cure, I think it's better to say that The Georgia Bulldogs are aware of breast cancer. Then let them play ball. Again, it's not just the pink wrist bands that bug me. It's the lack of uniformity. The team should make a decision to wear them or not wear them, but with only some players wearing pink in their arms, the team looks like the guys just threw outfits together at the last minute. Kind of like Natalie Portman at the Golden Globes. 

The pink/red combination has never really done anything for me.

Finally, the hair: 

See the hair flopping around at his shoulders?

No.

Same team. Same number, even. Different hair. 

We can even see Branden Smith's neck in this image. 

Yes.

The Dawgs have a bye next week. That'll give some players time to get to the barber shop.

After resting up a week, the Georgia Bulldogs will travel to Jacksonville to play the Florida Gators. Guess who'll be there also? The Remlers! I'm looking forward to that sports report!