tl;dr: Yes.

Have you heard? Todd Grantham is returning to Athens this weekend. I’m nothing if not a sucker for a good storyline, and this one…rates about a 2 out of 10.

Still, all of this Grantham returns! coverage got me wondering whether “third and Grantham” was a legitimate gripe or just more “run the damn ball Bobo” blathering where confirmation bias magnified any third down conversion. How did Grantham’s defenses really rank on third down?

• 2010: 79th (41.86%)
• 2011: 3rd (28.93%)
• 2012: 37th (36.54%)
• 2013: 64th (39.49%)

Grantham supervised the transition from a 4-3 base defense to a 3-4, and 2010 saw some growing pains that began to pay off with consecutive division titles in 2011 and 2012. 2011 stands out. Georgia went from a 6-7 team in 2010 to the SEC championship in Grantham’s second year thanks in large part to a top ten defense which, as you might expect, did very well on third down (or on most any down.) The amazing first half against LSU in the 2011 SEC Championship game was Grantham’s defense at its best. The 2012 defense was stacked with talent – Jones, Ogletree, Commings, Rambo, and on. Though the whole 2012 team was probably more well-rounded and in a better position to compete for a national title due to a more potent offense, the 2012 defense showed a fatal flaw against the run. Georgia’s rushing defense dropped from an impressive 11th nationally in 2011 to 81st in 2012. The Tennessee game was a track meet, and we won’t discuss the South Carolina game. It wasn’t until the Florida game and November that the defense really began to look like the sum of its parts (thanks Shawn Williams!)

So, yes, Georgia’s defense was excellent on third down in 2011 and decent in 2012, but they were decidedly average or below-average in Grantham’s other two years in Athens. The slide from 3rd to 37th to 64th on third down didn’t do much to quash the “third and Grantham” meme. In the eyes of many fans, his departure after the 2013 season just saved someone from making a decision a year or two later.

“Third and Grantham” didn’t just come about because of third down conversions – it was about third and long. Is there anything behind that? For answers we can look at opponents’ performance on passing downs.
(Stats are from Football Outsiders who define Passing Downs as “second down with 8 or more yards to go or third or fourth down with 5 or more yards to go.”) In other words, how well does the defense do when they might reasonably be expecting a pass? Grantham’s defenses were never (relatively) terrible in those situations and were never ranked worse than 47th on passing downs. At the same time, with the exception of Grantham’s first year in 2010, the defense’s performance on passing downs was worse than on standard downs. In 2012 and 2013, it was much worse.

When you do a fairly good job on standard downs to set up longer conversions, you expect to be in good shape to get off the field. That didn’t happen. Again, Georgia did better than most on passing downs, but they were relatively weaker in those situations than on standard downs. In 2013, Georgia allowed conversions on nearly 40% of third downs and ranked in the mid-40s on passing downs. It’s clear why the “third and Grantham” meme that appeared during his first season really took hold towards the end of his time in Athens.

Did “third and Grantham” come along to Starkville? Not in the way we think of it. The MSU defense has been impressive on third down in 2017. They are currently among the top ten in the nation, allowing conversions on just 21.4% of third downs through three games. Their defensive success rate on passing downs is 10.7%, good for 4th in the nation. When you’re that adept at stopping drives, you give your offense more possessions, and it’s no surprise then that MSU is among the highest-scoring teams in the nation. If Georgia wants to slow Fitzgerald and his productive offense, there isn’t a much better solution than maintaining possession and moving the chains. Georgia’s challenge on offense is to find success against a defense that has, so far, made “third and Grantham” something to anticipate rather than dread.

Yawn. “Yawn” is good in games like this, right? No one will shudder or cringe when they mention the Samford game (if they ever mention it again at all.) “Samford” won’t become a one-word cautionary shorthand the way Nicholls did. Unless you’re Terry Godwin pulling up the highlights years from now to relive the glory days, it was a forgettable game that will serve mostly to increment whatever Georgia’s win total ends up to be.

The game wasn’t without its drama. The clumsy second quarter sequence with a Samford touchdown and Georgia fumble could’ve made things interesting, but Georgia kept their poise, made plays on defense and special teams, and dominated the rest of the game.

So on to the next challenge and eight straight SEC games. Three quick things:

1) It was telling that Georgia’s first play of their second series was a successful toss out of the shotgun to Chubb. Interior runs were stuffed on the opening drive (especially on the fourth down attempt) as Georgia’s inside trio struggled against an FCS defensive front. Not good. Chubb of course was productive with a little space, and the Dawgs got good blocking from the tackles and receivers. Is this the way forward? Chubb’s power style is at its best when he can get a little head of steam, and it’s tough going sometimes getting through the logjam on the interior. Even on designed inside runs, Chubb is at his best when he can bounce outside. In the bowl game last year we saw outside runs from the pistol devastate TCU in the fourth quarter. If teams are going to load the box against the run, Georgia’s going to have to look to the perimeter on both run and pass plays. The advantage was exaggerated against the level of competition last week, but you like the odds with Chubb, Michel, Swift, or Godwin in space with one man to beat. On the other hand, we often hear about those early inside runs acting as body blows that pay off later as the defense softens, and Swift in particular has a little better burst through the line than Chubb. Inside or outside, Georgia’s offensive line will have to deal with Jeffery Simmons.

2) A Chris Hatcher offense can tell you a lot about your pass defense. Georgia’s secondary more or less held up well, but they were aided by a few key drops and the pass rush. McGhee was picked on, sure, and a competent quarterback like Samford’s can find a weakness and continue to attack it. It was more than McGhee though. LeCounte continues to learn on the job, Reed had a few lapses, and a well-thrown ball beat Davis on their second touchdown with LeCounte unable to help in time. Still, 6.5 yards per attempt isn’t a poor day at the office against an offense that likes to throw it around. Georgia did well, with only a few lapses, at getting third down stops (Samford converted 4 of 11 third downs) and limiting the number of plays run by the visiting Bulldogs.

3) When I first saw this formation from the stands, I blurted out “FLEXBONE!” Yes, the backs (Chubb especially) were lined up too far back for it to be a true flexbone look. But seeing a single back, Chubb, with Herrien and Swift flanked out behind the tight ends made you wonder what they were up to. Fromm kept the ball for an easy 3rd-and-1 conversion in this case, so we never got a look at the possibilities created by this formation. But they’re fun to think about…

Jake Fromm’s ability to lead the team on the road into that environment was one of the big unknowns entering the game. Further, regardless of the setting, how would he handle his first taste of adversity? His debut was in almost perfect conditions – he was at home, against an overmatched opponent, and the team was able to play in possession of the lead for the entire game. The conditions Fromm faced in Notre Dame game turned out to be nearly opposite. He was on the road, the opponent was more or less an even matchup, and Georgia played from behind for all but a few minutes.

Ignoring individual plays and decisions, I think that’s what impressed me most about the game. Georgia came back from a deficit four times. I think that’s where Notre Dame’s All-American offensive tackle Mike McGlinchey was coming from when he said, “We had them, for the most part, where we wanted them all game.” Notre Dame, a home favorite, had the lead for much of the game and forced a shaky offense with a freshman quarterback to answer not once, not twice, not three times, but four times. Who wouldn’t think they held the upper hand under those circumstances.

Will this go down as one of the great fourth quarter comebacks? Should it? I guess it will depend on how the rest of the season goes. This might be hindsight talking, but things never seemed that dire. Tense, anxious, and frustrated at times, sure, but I didn’t sense that Notre Dame controlled the game even as they maintained a close lead. Maybe the three earlier answers gave us confidence that Georgia had one more push in them. Perhaps the defense limiting the deficit to no more than six points kept the panic from taking over. As the defense forced field goal after field goal, you saw Notre Dame waste several opportunities to put Georgia in serious trouble and leave the door open for Georgia to tie or take the lead.

The Bellamy forced fumble, Wims using his size to set up the winning field goal, and Blankenship knocking it home were the highlights of the comeback. I’ll remember two additional plays. Before Georgia could drive for the win, they had to get the ball back. Notre Dame had possession and a two-point lead, and they faced a 3rd-and-3. Brandon Wimbush kept the ball and looked to have room around the left side to move the chains. Natrez Patrick shed his block and forced Wimbush further outside. J.R. Reed charged in from his safety position to stop Wimbush short of first down yardage, forcing a punt that led to Georgia’s game-winning drive. That drive started well enough with a 12-yard run by Chubb and a quick 8-yard pass to Nauta. Chubb was stuffed on second down, setting up a 3rd-and-1 near midfield. Sony Michel averted a disaster. Fromm faked the fullback dive and pitched to Michel. Notre Dame defensive end Daelin Hayes stayed home and was in position to stop Michel behind the line. Sony made a quick cut to the right to avoid Hayes and sustained the drive. Had Hayes made the tackle, Georgia would have faced a 4th-and-6 and likely would have punted with about 5:45 remaining. Even with the cut, Hayes got enough of the ball to knock it loose, but Michel recovered and finished the run. Fromm found Wims on the very next play, and Georgia was in position to take the lead.

There were so many of those individual moments in this game. Some had more frequent (Carter) or more spectacular (Bellamy, Godwin) moments than others, but it’s really tough to try to list them without feeling as if you’re leaving someone out. Roquan Smith was everywhere. LeCounte’s pass breakup was a sign of things to come for a talented freshman. Sanders made a touchdown-saving play on the game’s first snap. Thompson, Clark, and Atkins disrupted a very good offensive line so that Smith and the other linebackers had room to operate at full speed and make plays.

Yes, the defense was outstanding (with the exception of penalties.) I was surprised Notre Dame didn’t do more to counter Georgia’s speed and aggressive pursuit. A successful screen pass was key in setting up their touchdown, but we saw few plays like that – screens, quick passes to neutralize the pass rush, reverses to catch the defense going the wrong way, and similar tricks we’ve all seen coaches use to slow down an aggressive defense. They stuck with the read option plays that could be contained and funneled to the inside, and their pass plays often took long enough to develop that Georgia was able to tally far more QB hurries and sacks than they did in the opener. I expect future opponents who have the benefit of this film to be a little more deliberate about trying those countermeasures against Georgia’s defensive strengths.

I want to touch on one play on offense because it brings together a few themes that were a big part of the preseason and early season discussion: the running game, involving the tight ends, Fromm’s inexperience, and RPOs.

When we talk about RPOs, we’re often thinking about a quarterback who’s a credible threat to run. Fromm might have a little more mobility than Eason, but I doubt coaches want Fromm taking any more hits than he already does. He didn’t run the ball on any other read play when he could have easily gained some yards. So why, as on the second quarter fumble, would Fromm pull the ball back from the tailback as if he were going to keep it? Against Appalachian State, one of Fromm’s earliest completions was a quick-hitting 16-yard pass to Nauta down the seam after showing a handoff to Chubb. On the play that resulted in the fumble, again Nauta is releasing vertically while Fromm looks to hand the ball to Chubb. Even if Fromm isn’t a threat to run himself on either play, he still has two options: the straight handoff to Chubb is always there if the line shows a certain look, but that handoff option can have the same effect as play action. The option here isn’t run/keep; the option is handoff/pass. If the defense reacts to the run threat, Nauta is available down the seam. I think on the fumble we saw a misexecuted RPO rather than Fromm looking to take off running.

As a fan, I couldn’t have been happier with the weekend. It was an unforgettable trip, and the Dawgs won. As an observer of this team, I’m holding off talking about any kind of statement. It was a road win over a ranked team, and those are tough to come by. Hopefully the team found some things to build on and take into SEC play. But as a defining moment, it felt a lot more like a slightly better version of last season’s Auburn game. You were relieved to get the win, but the performance of the offense was sobering enough to take the edge off of a defensive highlight reel.

It’s been a rough week without power and internet access since we returned from Chicago and South Bend, but I wanted to get a few posts out about the trip.

Our group arrived Thursday, and the flight up was reminiscent of earlier trips to Tempe and Boulder. Georgia fans in good spirits (and drinking good spirits) filled the plane, and that became a commonplace sight throughout the trip. We used Chicago as our base and did the Cubs/Dawgs/Falcons triple-header. For several of us, it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience to check off three of the most iconic venues in sports. It looked as if we weren’t alone, and many smiles, “Go Dawgs!”, and even a few barks were exchanged with thousands of fans throughout the weekend. The experience of being a Road Dawg is a treasure. It’s not always inexpensive, and it can be tough to leave family and other obligations for a distant football game, but it’s almost always worth it. I hope every dedicated Georgia fan can experience a big road game.

I was impressed with the folks behind the Dawg Days events in which thousands of fans participated. I can only speak for my group’s experience, but everything went smoothly – pre-event communication, registration, transportation, and of course the events themselves. It was a well-organized operation, and it even handled the sudden Cubs’ time change. Of course drink and bathroom lines can always be shorter, but that’s a fact of life when you offer free beer to Georgia tailgaters.

That brings us to the game and the campus. $400 million buys you some nice stadium improvements, and it showed. The exterior facade of the stadium blended into the surrounding buildings. Wide concourses had almost a vintage feel, modernized with all of the conveniences. It’s natural to compare the results of this renovation with the needs of Sanford Stadium, but that’s a whole other post for some offseason.

A friend called it “Masters Football.” The stadium wasn’t lit up with marquee boards, there was no find-the-leprechaun-behind-the-french-fries game, and in-game messages highlighted faculty achievements and other points of pride. The only blemish was piping in music, especially on opponent third downs, but that’s kind of a given now. (And with several of the music selections Atlanta hip-hop, perhaps they were just trying to make us feel at home.) The campus of course was immaculate with nearly every Georgia fan seeking out a photo opportunity in front of the Golden Dome or Touchdown Jesus.

The quantity of Georgia fans in South Bend shook a lot of us. Even Georgia fans who expected a large turnout were overwhelmed and didn’t expect it to be that big. I was giddy and immensely proud of the turnout, and I’m relieved that we left a fairly good impression. I don’t blame Notre Dame fans for being put off by an opponent taking over their stadium, but I agree with Michael that the Georgia turnout should be considered the highest compliment to Notre Dame. I don’t know that as many Georgia fans would travel to Penn State or Nebraska, though we’d have an above-average showing as we did for Arizona State and Colorado. Regardless of Notre Dame’s current relevancy, college football fans have to acknowledge the program’s place in our history. Most any program’s DNA has some common threads with Notre Dame whether it’s directly (Harry Mehre) or indirectly (Vince Dooley). If you want to go deeper than I care to here, you can explore Notre Dame’s embodiment of northern college football or even dive into Savannah Catholicism. For whatever reasons, we had to be there. A fun city like Chicago nearby added to the appeal, and the opportunity to take in Wrigley Field and Soldier Field as well as Notre Dame made the trip a must for me.

Seeing the red was impressive enough, but the lights during the fourth quarter fanfare took your breath away. The colors were tough to pick out in far corners of the stadium, but there was no mistaking the breadth of the individual lights from nearly every section of the stadium. There were audible gasps, and you can hear the roar growing from the Georgia fans as they realized the magnitude of the Bulldog presence. I heard a Notre Dame observer on the WSLS podcast talk about how demoralizing that moment was for the home crowd, and I wonder what it did for the teams. Georgia’s players and coaches have been effusive with their praise for the road crowd, and I would bet that it took a little wind out of the sails of the home team.

I’ve been a proponent of keeping these big games on campus, though I realize it’s swimming upstream agaisnt the money to be made from neutral site games. Kirby Smart has expressed his preference for the big neutral site games. Fortunately this home-and-home was negotiated before the coaching change. It’s a fact that the interests of the fans don’t always align themselves with what’s best for the team. Georgia could have simply scheduled another lightweight home game as they will in 2018. Speaking for my wallet, a trip of this magnitude isn’t workable every year or even every other year (especially if Jacksonville is an annual ritual,) but I’m already looking forward to UCLA in 2025. Perhaps the rarity and uniqueness of these games make them so desirable. I don’t know that I would have gone to this game in, say, Dallas. I’m selfishly glad they took the risk to play this series.

I should close by commending everything about Notre Dame. From Chicago to South Bend, ND fans were cordial, welcoming, and gracious. Campus ambassadors and game day staff went looking for ways to help and point us in the right direction. There was some bantering of course, and maybe Notre Dame fans are more subdued than usual these days, but I hope they have at least half as good a time in Athens in 2019 as we did last weekend.

“Year 2” was a common offseason theme. Kirby Smart was entering his second year as head coach. Jacob Eason was entering his second season as the starting quarterback (get well soon!) It was natural that we saw countless “Year 2 effect” stories pointing out how well a coach or quarterback did in his second season relative to his first.

With Smart, it was exciting to think about how Mark Richt took an 8-4 team in 2001 and produced an SEC champion the next year. Smart’s association with Alabama and Nick Saban reminded us that Saban’s 7-6 squad in 2007 improved enough to post an undefeated regular season in 2008. Eason can’t seem to escape Matthew Stafford comparisons, and so we looked to 2007 and Stafford’s second season as the starting quarterback for what we might expect of Eason after one year leading the offense.

Within a single season, the second game gets similar treatment. The claim that “teams usually make their biggest improvement between the first and second games” has been repeated enough that we accept it as a fact and an inevitability.

The second game hasn’t always been so kind to Georgia. We only have to go back a season. We felt good about overcoming a decent North Carolina team, got giddy over Nick Chubb’s return, and saw the promise of a talented freshman quarterback. Then came the horror of the Nicholls game. Since we brought up 2007, remember how it began. Georgia had an impressive win over Oklahoma State in the opener, and Stafford was productive and efficient leading the team to a comfortable win. That was followed up by an ugly 16-12 loss to South Carolina – a game in which the offense failed to reach the end zone for the first time in six years. That loss ended up keeping Georgia from a shot at SEC and national titles in 2007.

Surely Saban had it easier? The second game of his turnaround 2008 season was an unconvincing 20-6 win over Tulane that featured only one offensive touchdown. The Tide had a dominant eye-opening win over Clemson in the Georgia Dome to start the season, but even this team that would head into the postseason without a loss couldn’t avoid a Game 2 hangover.

Georgia enters Game 2 of 2017 focused as much on survival as improvement. We hope the offensive line takes a step forward with Solomon Kindley’s return. The many true freshmen who played in the opener should also be past their first game jitters and can iron out some of Saturday’s mistakes. The team’s biggest priority though is preparing Jake Fromm for his first start. It’s tough to expect wholesale improvement as the team has had less than a week to prepare for Notre Dame while scrambling to get Fromm and his backups as much work as possible. Since Fromm looked comfortable and confident in the opener, I’d expect that he’s faced everything but the kitchen sink this week in an attempt to rattle him and see how he responds.

We’ve seen some impressive season openers before, but it’s not often that Georgia has faced a Game 2 of this magnitude. You have the novelty of the Notre Dame trip, a road game as the underdog, the challenge of a Top 25 opponent, and you’re placing the offense in the hands of a true freshman. That would be enough for an entire offseason of preparation; now you’re doing it within the normal parameters of just another game week. If Georgia is able to sustain the level of play from the opener while showing improvement in light of the major shock to the system of losing Eason, this Game 2 could open up some big possibilities for the rest of Year 2.

Saturday’s season-opening 31-10 win over Appalachian State was an unremarkable drama-free win by a top 15 program over a quality mid-major team, and it barely moved the needle beyond Athens. In other words, it was a novelty.

The past two seasons of home games have been less pleasant than pulling teeth, so Saturday’s win was a much-needed release for the Sanford Stadium crowd. After the slow start and the early injury to Jacob Eason, Georgia’s defense bought time for a freshman quarterback to come off the bench and build a comfortable lead by halftime. It was, dare we say, fun to watch. The weather was perfect, the crowd was engaged, and damn near the entire roster saw the field. After hearing all week about Michigan 2007, Nicholls, and the fact that Georgia hadn’t won a game by more than 14 points in almost two years, it was a welcome and refreshing sight to see a dominant win.

Georgia’s strongest unit was, as expected, the defense. When you have that much talent, experience and, presumably, decent enough coaching, it should show up in the results. The Bulldog defense was stingy on the interior, and Appalachian State’s tailbacks weren’t much of a factor. Georgia’s pass defense was equally effective, holding Appalachian State to under 5 yards per pass attempt.

The good news is that the defense can be even better. The base pass rush can improve – one of Georgia’s two sacks came on a safety blitz, and the team recorded zero quarterback hurries. Appalachian State’s most effective running plays were by the quarterback on read option plays, and that discipline on the edge will have to be better against a Notre Dame quarterback that rushed for over 100 yards. There was the occasional breakdown in pass coverage, and that’s to be expected with so many inexperienced defensive backs playing large roles. If this is the reference point though, this could be a fun defense to watch.

Less expected was the special teams performance. The return units didn’t have much to do – kickoffs were sparse, and punts were often fair catch candidates. Georgia’s kicking though was eye-opening. Cameron Nizialek was a true weapon as the punter. His usual punts were good enough, but twice he was able to pin back Appalachian State inside their own 10, and that field position helped to set up a very short field for Georgia’s first score. Thanks to good hangtime and good speed on the coverage team, no Georgia punts were returned. Rodrigo Blankenship was true on a short field goal attempt but really showed progress on kickoffs. I want some of what got into his leg in the offseason. The one kickoff that was returned was snuffed out inside the 20.

So add good defense and special teams, and you have Kirby Smart’s ideal: an opponent forced to drive the field and the occasional good field position for your own offense. Three of Georgia’s four touchdown drives began beyond the Georgia 30. Georgia’s advantage in field position was such that the defense could afford infrequent long runs or passes by Appalachian State and still have plenty of room to recover. Mix in an offense that eventually found ways to move the ball, and you have all three phases of the game contributing. The result? Points on five out of six drives and a lead that grows to a comfortable margin.

On offense, of course the quarterback situation has to dominate the discussion about the offense. Eason didn’t have a strong start and overthrew Nauta, but the playcalling was also fairly restrained on those opening drives. Before we get to Fromm’s performance, I have to commend the preparation of both Fromm and the coaches. It helped that he was an early enrollee, but Fromm was poised and put into situations where he could gain confidence. It’s standard now to compare Fromm and Murray as we do with Eason and Stafford, but Fromm wasn’t without his Stafford gunslinger moments. You couldn’t see that sidearm pass he threw in the third quarter without thinking about some of the unconventional fearless (if not occasionally ill-advised) throws Stafford became known for.

So what do we have in Fromm? We know the leadership qualities are there, and we know he’s not afraid to make most any throw. His arm isn’t what Eason’s is, demonstrated by the trajectory of some of his deeper passes. He might be a quick study in the film room, but coaches won’t feel comfortable using as much of the playbook as they might otherwise have. Of course he’ll likely make a poor decision or two as he sees more pressure from better defenses. We didn’t see him flushed from the pocket much, but he’s supposed to be a little more mobile than Eason. (That said, how much do we want him scrambling without a viable backup?) What seems to matter most is that he has buy-in from his coaches and teammates. Even former players noticed it and commented on it during the game. Those around him and those who have been in the Georgia program recognize someone capable of running and leading the offense. That’s good enough for me.

• A turning point in a game like this? It was early, but J.R. Reed’s sack and forced fumble came at an important moment. Taylor Lamb ripped off a long run into Georgia territory, and Appalachian State threatened to post the first points of the game. Reed came off the right side, got off a block as he kept his eyes on Lamb, and then charged the quarterback at a sprint to force the fumble. The loss of over 20 yards killed the drive. Georgia didn’t score on their next possession, but Nizialek punted the ball inside the 10 and set up the field position that would result in Georgia having only 40 yards to go for their first points.
• Reed was just one of several newcomers to have impressive debuts. LeCounte played most of the game and survived his trial by fire. Swift was used both at tailback and in the slot and showed promise.
• Fromm’s two best throws might’ve been on Georgia’s first scoring drive. First was the quick pop down the seam to Nauta that Isaac caught in stride. Next was the completion to Wims to set up Chubb’s touchdown. The ball was placed perfectly between defenders and settled into the hands of Wims. Fromm had his share of questionable throws, but those two early passes showed a special ability.
• Was Fromm’s pass to Nauta an RPO? There was certainly a fake to the tailback that helped to create space for Nauta. Was there a run option built into that play?
• Things we didn’t see? Tailbacks weren’t involved in the passing game. Swift caught three passes, but he often lined up in the slot, and only one of those receptions came from the backfield. No need to show those elements yet.
• We also didn’t see many of the jet sweeps or “Isaiah McKenzie” plays that were so effective last year. Certainly there was some motion, but it was almost always a decoy.
• Kudos to the UGA staff for $2 water until 6:00. A nice plus for people who are in the stadium early. I rarely visit the concessions, so most of the improvements were lost on me, but the water deal was one of those little things that you appreciate after a walk over from tailgate.

I’ve seen more predictions than not giving Appalachian State 17 or 20 points. It’s understandable – I respect their running game. I respect their senior quarterback. But if Georgia is giving up in the neighborhood of 20 points to a non-P5 opponent, it tells me that Georgia’s defense isn’t what we think it is. With so many returning starters and contributors in their second year in the system, there shouldn’t have to be much of a readjustment period for the defense. If we’re using last year’s Appalachian State-Tennessee game as a cautionary tale, the Vols’ problem was an offense that took the better part of three quarters to get going. Tennessee held the Mountaineers to 13 total points and shut them out in the second half, and as we saw in Athens, it wasn’t the most dominant Tennessee defense. Appalachian State managed just ten points at home against Miami. Should we expect as much from the 2017 Georgia defense?

I’d like to see this opponent held to no more than ten points. It’s an ambitious target given the quality and experience of the offense we’re facing, but the defense is supposed to be the lynchpin of the 2017 team. Let’s challenge them. A low score for App. State would also imply that other areas of the Georgia team are pulling their weight. The offense isn’t creating a short field via turnovers or three-and-outs. Special teams isn’t shanking punts or giving up long returns. It would also tell us whether Georgia’s red zone defense has improved.

It would truly be a team effort to hold the Mountaineers under 10 points, and I include the reserves in that goal. Last year against ULM Georgia coasted to a 35-7 lead. They gave up consecutive touchdowns in the final five minutes to close the gap to 35-21. Those touchdowns were meaningless in the outcome, but fourth quarter misadventures were part of the story way too often in 2016. Finishing a complete game has to be a team mindset, and hopefully we’ll get to see how even the true freshmen handle it.

Again, if we’re looking at their opener against Tennessee last season, the bigger challenge should be for Georgia’s offense. We can expect the same compact look we saw from every defense last season in an attempt to stop the run first. We’ll see what new weapons are available to stretch the field in the passing game. We’ll see if Eason can trust his protection and become a more accurate and efficient passer to sustain and finish more drives. We’ll see if the coaches can continue the creativity they showed in the bowl game with Michel catching passes out of the backfield or the tailbacks gashing the defense on outside runs late in the game. There’s a lot more uncertainty about the offense, especially with several inexperienced linemen making their first starts.

Appalachian State’s formula for keeping this game close isn’t a shootout; it’s a low-scoring ugly game similar to the 13-13 regulation draw in Knoxville a year ago where a single turnover, busted defensive play, or field goal could turn the game. 17 or 20 points on their side would be enough to keep them in the game. It’s the job of this experienced and talented defense to make things a little more comfortable as the offense finds its way.

It’s game week! Preseason camp is over, and the team is well into opponent preparation. After all of the news reports and tidbits I’ve picked up over the past month, this is my sense of how the various position groups are faring heading into the season.

Offensive line: Lukewarm

If you were counting on definitive answers along the offensive line to make you feel better about the 2017 season, you’re going to be waiting for a while. The combination of newcomers, minor injuries, and the sheer number of open spots on the first and second team lines means that there are still decisions to be made. That’s maddening to fans looking for resolution to the team’s biggest question, and Kirby Smart is in no hurry to announce anything decisive. Though there hasn’t been and likely won’t be official confirmation, a starting line has begun to coalesce. There are nuggets of good news – Isaiah Wynn has looked to be the veteran anchor he was expected to be. True freshman Andrew Thomas has been a pleasant surprise and might even start. But as for nailing down specific positions and the depth chart? Ask us again in the second quarter of the App. State game.

The bright side? There is finally enough depth to have a legitimate competition. In less than three weeks, Georgia will have to name a traveling roster for the Notre Dame trip. Assuming there are 10 offensive linemen on the travel roster, there are about 11 or 12 players competing for those 10 spots. Some familiar names might be left off that list. In fact, given how fluid the composition of the line might be over the next couple of weeks, the battle for a coveted trip to South Bend might be more interesting than the competition to be a week one starter.

The big question remains how the line will perform. It was underwhelming at G-Day, but we were reassured that the incoming class would help. Thomas and perhaps Isaiah Wilson could crack the rotation, but the lines we’ve seen in practice have largely been returning players. In some sense, that’s a positive – the fewer freshmen linemen that play, the better, even when you’re talking about one of the best OL recruiting hauls in the nation. On the other hand, you’re relying on the development of players who either contributed to last season’s sub-par line or weren’t able to unseat those who did play. That development should be aided by another year with Sam Pittman, and it’s the first time since 2014 that a Georgia team will have the same line coach and blocking approach for consecutive seasons.

Tailbacks: Surface of the sun

Take a returning group of Chubb, Michel, Herrien, and Holyfield. Add true freshman D’Andre Swift, who was turning heads early in fall camp, and you have one solid unit. When the big question for the tailbacks is who gets the carries after the first two guys, you can feel pretty good about the position.

Quarterbacks: Throwing more logs on the fire

The team replaced Lambert with another touted freshman, and Ramsey is back in the fold as a quarterback rather than a punter. Let’s not assume just yet that the position is in a better spot than it was a year ago. Fromm’s potentially more talented than Lambert, but Fromm is far less experienced and would have to go through the same growing pains Eason experienced a year ago. So whether the QB position is in better shape seems to hang on the progress of Eason. That progress is…ongoing. There have been good moments, but we’re still a ways from feeling as confident about the position as we are about the tailbacks. Fromm, for his part, has been fairly anonymous. That’s a good thing as far as snuffing out any kind of manufactured controversy. He hasn’t struggled any more than you’d expect, but he also hasn’t overtaken Eason. That’s fine – he’s a good true freshman quarterback who will be brought along as such. As with the tailbacks, it’s worth watching who comes off the bench. With Fromm a redshirt candidate until he plays, do things go well enough that Ramsey can handle the rest?

Tight ends: Simmering

Nauta, Blazevich, and Woerner are all a year older. It’s an experienced and healthy group. We’ve been proclaiming “The Year of the Tight End” for what seems like three or four years now, and it’s unlikely that Georgia will have a better combination of depth, talent, and experience for a couple of seasons. Don’t forget about Harris and Davis either. Now it’s up to the coaches to use them.

Receivers: Warming up

Jacob Eason didn’t have a ton with which to work a year ago, and it was a mixed blessing that Isaiah McKenzie became a favorite target. McKenzie was a capable playmaker and will be missed, but Georgia still lacked much of a deep threat or physical outside receivers. With much of the same group back, is there hope for improvement? Start with Javon Wims – the 6’4″ JUCO transfer had a typical JUCO adjustment and recorded just two receptions through the first six games. He added 15 receptions in the back half of the season. Terry Godwin, a former 5* prospect, has been a steady contributor since his freshman season but recognizes the need to play a larger role. Chigbu and Stanley have been known more for their blocking, but this is their best opportunity to earn playing time a some of Georgia’s larger receivers before younger receivers develop. Riley Ridley showed us what he can do at times as a freshman, but consistency and personal discipline will determine whether he’s a breakout star in 2017.

Newcomers should be able to contribute early. Ahkil Crumpton is a JUCO known mostly for his kick return ability, but he’ll also be an option for several of the McKenzie-type plays. Mark Webb’s size should get him on the field on special teams as well as at receiver. J.J. Holloman electrified the crowd at G-Day, but he’s been quiet in August as he cautiously rehabilitates a hamstring injury. Don’t be surprised to see him contribute with relatively little fanfare.

An issue is what seems like a glut of talent in the slot. Crumpton, Godwin, and Hardman are cut from similar cloth. It will be a challenge for the coaches to keep them involved and still have the personnel on the field to improve the vertical passing game. Godwin has the experience and talent to line up outside on certain plays. Any of these slot receivers, in addition to Michel, Swift, and Herrien, could feature in the Wildcat, on jet sweeps, or just about any play in the book designed to get the ball into space.

Defensive line: A rolling boil

This is a fun group to think about, and new position coach Tray Scott has to be excited. Thompson, Atkins, and Ledbetter are enough to make you smile, but then you remember Rochester, Marshall, Carter, Hawkins-Muckle, Young, and Clark. Chauncey Manac can contribute at DE in pass situations. There’s depth, and it’s good depth. Malik Herring, a key member of the 2017 signing class, might have to be a redshirt candidate. With Thompson, this group can be very effective against the run. The first order of business is conditioning: it’s nice to have a deep rotation, but some of the linemen need to make themselves available for more snaps when the team needs their skills in the game. The next step is to become a more disruptive group on pass plays.

Linebackers: On the back burner

We’ve heard quite a bit from and about Lorenzo Carter in the preseason. Good things. But how often have you seen the names Roquan Smith or Natrez Patrick in practice or scrimmage reports this month? If linebackers were an unknown, that would be a sign to worry. Because we know plenty about Carter, Smith, Patrick, and Bellamy, no news is good news. Reserves D’Andre Walker and Chauncey Manac will contribute depth on the outside, and Tae Crowder and Jaleel Laguins will try to hold off some talented freshmen on the inside. Several in this group can be moved around and matched up depending on the opponent. If there’s a doubt about this group, it’s the same as the defensive line: can all of this talent generate a more effective pass rush?

Secondary: Cold front?

The outlook was sunny for Georgia’s veteran defensive backfield. Though they’d be replacing the production of Mo Smith and lost some reserves to attrition, the group still had enough experience and returning starters to get by – barely. An injury to Malkom Parrish caused a sudden chill in the optimism. Without Parrish for the first couple of games, Georgia will have to shuffle its secondary and play inexperience underclassmen or perhaps even true freshmen. There is competition among that young talent though, and coaches have been pleased with the newcomers. Safety J.R. Reed could follow Jake Ganus and Mo Smith in a line of transfers who make an immediate contribution to the defense. The duration of Parrish’s absence will have a lot to say about the composition of this group after the first couple of weeks, but it might be a matter of time before we see more significant playing time for freshmen Richard LeCounte III or Deangelo Gibbs.

Special teams: Thawing

Georgia’s 2016 struggles on special teams began in the season opener and rarely let up. There was the occasional bright spot (Blankenship at Kentucky), but even the Human Joystick dropped off until the UL-M game. Punting fell to a reserve quarterback. That’s enough about last year.

We might see a new set of kickers thanks to a pair of graduate transfers. Fans got a glimpse of punter Cameron Nizialek at G-Day, and he seems in position to start the season. David Marvin is neck-and-neck with Rodrigo Blankenship for placekicking, and the two might split placekicking and kickoff duties. The departures of Reggie Davis and Isaiah McKenzie mean that we’ll see new returners as well. JUCO transfer Ahkil Crumpton was a mid-summer addition to the team and will try to fill in for McKenzie as both a returner and receiver. Mecole Hardman and Terry Godwin are also possibilities for kick returns.

Coverage units should benefit from Georgia’s strong recruiting. A large, fast Nate McBride charging down the field on kick coverage would be an impressive sight. The only way some talented newcomers like McBride might make the limited travel roster is on special teams. There is competition for those special teams roles among young defenders and even tailbacks and receivers. As Smart fills out his 85-man roster and improves the quality of depth, that quality will begin to show up on special teams. There’s too much turnover among the specialists – kickers and returners – to justify confidence in special teams heading into the season, but there’s at least hope that it won’t be the train wreck that it was a year ago.

Kirby Smart is the prophetic voice of experience. From last month:

“We do not have much depth in the secondary past the group that’s playing,” Smart said. “I’ve never played a year that didn’t have an injury where one of these freshmen that are going to be running with our twos is going to have to step up and play in one of these big games.”

Sure enough, the secondary is already facing its first injury crisis.

In a potential blow to Georgia’s defense, senior cornerback Malkom Parrish could miss the start of the season after sustaining a foot injury. Parrish broke a bone in his foot and required surgery, according to a source with firsthand knowledge of the situation. Such an injury usually keeps a player out several weeks.

Georgia’s depth chart at secondary is one of extremes: “We have a void in our secondary,” Smart explained. “We have old and we have young. We have nothing in the middle.” The first team defensive backs are all upperclassmen, each with multiple years of experience. The second team is much more green with either true freshmen or underclassmen who have seen limited action beyond special teams.

The void Smart spoke of was addressed with a strong group in the 2017 signing class, but it leaves the secondary as one of the positions at which the team can least afford an injury to a starter. It appears as if the team will be without a starting cornerback against the veteran Appalachian State offense and possibly even the talented Notre Dame offense. Georgia’s response to the injury will require exposing some inexperience in nickel situations. As Seth Emerson noted, senior Aaron Davis is most likely to shift back to cornerback from the nickel/star spot. I agree that sophomore Tyrique McGhee will get a good look at star especially for the opener. If Parrish’s injury lingers, it will open up opportunities for freshmen DeAngelo Gibbs and Richard LeCounte III to become part of the solution.

The lack of reserve experience in the secondary was a big reason for the hesitancy earlier this year in deciding on a position for Mecole Hardman. Hardman, who spent last season as a reserve cornerback, showed promise on offense, but Smart was noncommittal about a permanent move until just last month. That ship seems to have sailed though. I’m a little relieved not to hear anything about yanking Hardman back to defense, even if part-time, as a knee-jerk response to this injury. It was a risk to remove a talented athlete from the secondary in light of the experience gap, but it’s a decision Smart is going to have to stick with to realize the biggest potential payoff from moving Hardman to receiver. Smart is going to have to rely on those raw but talented underclassmen and newcomers to round out his secondary.

Kirby Smart had fewer than two months to salvage and fill out his first signing class in 2016. It wasn’t the largest class, and it didn’t receive the accolades of his first full class in 2017, but last season’s newcomers still had a considerable impact on the 2016 team. How big of an impact? 16 of the 21 signees saw playing time in 2016. About 10 of them became what I’d consider “regulars”: either outright starters or frequently-used reserves like David Marshall and Brian Herrien. Others saw occasional action, had their playing time limited by injury, or contributed on special teams.

One signee, Chad Clay, was dismissed from the program. That leaves just four players who enter 2017 as redshirt freshmen.

• OL Chris Barnes
• OL Ben Cleveland
• OL Solomon Kindley
• DE/OLB Chauncey Manac

It’s interesting that three of the redshirts were offensive linemen. Even with the state of the offensive line in 2016, the coaches still balked at playing many true freshmen. It’s the toughest position to play as a freshman, and a true freshman on the offensive line is often a last resort. That said, a couple of true freshmen in the 2017 class, especially Isaiah Wilson and Andrew Thomas, are expected to compete for significant playing time – if not starting roles. They’ll be competing against these three redshirt freshmen as well as some more veteran prospects. With Gaillard and Wynn returning, several positions are up for grabs.

Kindley actually saw playing time as a true freshman. He was in for a single snap against Missouri. The coaches considered Kindley one of the team’s top eight linemen and planned to play him more as the season went on, but injuries affected that plan, and he never saw the field again. Georgia appealed to the NCAA to salvage his redshirt, and that appeal was granted earlier this year. Kindley will still have four years of eligibility, and he’s likely to step in for Gaillard at right guard if Gaillard starts at center. Cleveland, a former 5* prospect, has looked the part of a dominant lineman since high school, but he’s a good example of how even the bluest of the blue chips can have an adjustment moving to the college game. He’s a contender at either guard or right tackle, but it feels like a pivotal year for his development.

In many years Chauncey Manac might have played as a true freshmen, but the need at his position in 2016 didn’t justify burning the redshirt. He could be an important piece in Georgia’s search for an improved pass rush. Manac’s combination of size and speed give the coaches some flexibility, and Manac spent the spring working at both outside linebacker and defensive end.

Smart said if the Bulldogs often played against offenses such as Georgia’s, LSU’s and Arkansas’, which are more traditional, pro-style offenses, Manac would exclusively be an outside linebacker. However, with the amount of spread teams Georgia faces, Manac can be utilized on the defensive line due to his speed and size.

A 3-4 defensive end with some speed whose size isn’t a liability is a nice ace in the hole for Kirby Smart and his defensive staff.

If you like to inject as much college football as possible into your veins, it’s a good day.

ESPN today rolled out a new version of its Apple TV app that introduces the ability to watch four live simultaneous streams which can be displayed on the screen at the same time.

As the article notes, you’ll be able to configure the four streams any number of ways including everything from four equal panes to one primary stream while keeping an eye on the other three. This will be especially great when ESPN goes with the Megacast and offers different views of the same game on separate streams.

Of course it’s not perfect or for everyone:

• You’ll only get games and streams offered by ESPN and ABC. That’s a ton of content and will include the SEC Network programming, but you won’t be able to include the featured CBS game (or Fox, NBC, etc).
• You’ll need the 4th generation (post-2015) Apple TV hardware (and, it goes without saying, a decent internet connection. This isn’t something that will work at tailgate.)
• You’ll have to authenticate with an active cable subscription. This won’t work for cord-cutters – at least until ESPN launches its own streaming service.

But if you can check all of those boxes, your Saturday experience on the couch just got better.

Most of us have the SEC East title as our minimum threshold for a successful 2017 season. There are some other objectives along the way – winning in Jacksonville – but a lot of them move us closer to the goal of playing in the SEC title game. Barrett Sallee brings up an unpleasant thought which, if not corrected, would leave a big stain on the season.

No, Georgia Tech doesn’t have the street cred as big brother Georgia…but it has two wins over the last three seasons — both at Georgia — and is fresh off a 9-4 season. That’s enough to give the Yellow Jackets the edge over Kirby Smart’s crew for now.

Question that conclusion if you’d like, but it reminded me of one big to-do for 2017: unless Georgia can win in Atlanta, this year’s seniors would become the first Georgia class since the redshirt seniors of 2002 to finish with a losing record to Tech (*). It’s bad enough that they’ve already dropped two, but I don’t want to live in a world in which Nick Chubb has to carry that stigma around for the rest of his life.

(* – Carter was in. Jasper was down.)

The AJC shared over the weekend a letter from a former baseball letterman calling for a change of leadership for the athletic department. The letter doesn’t break much new ground in its litany of complaints against the athletic department. It wasn’t a great year for some of Georgia’s more visible programs, and Greg McGarity isn’t a popular athletics director these days. Fine.

I couldn’t let this line pass without comment though. Which program would this informed letterman have Georgia emulate?

“Look at Clemson and what their athletic department has done with great leadership and a plan for high success.”

Clemson finished a lofty 52nd in this year’s Directors’ Cup standings. Lest you think that was an off-year, the Tigers were 42nd in 2016 and 57th in 2015. When I say “it’s about the football“, this is what I’m talking about. Clemson’s overall program can barely break into the top 50, but success in the most visible sports creates the perception of “great leadership.” Meanwhile it’s a crisis that Georgia nearly fell out of the top 20.

I don’t bring that up to diminish the concerns expressed in the letter. Success in football won’t eliminate customer service issues, and it won’t make the volleyball program any better. It might be enough that perception matters here: as the AJC notes, the letter gives “an on-the-record voice to the concerns that others have expressed behind the scenes.” Whether it’s based on football (or, in this case, baseball), those shortcomings invite us to find others. The athletics administration doesn’t have many defenders, at least not in the public space. Is that perception recoverable?

Trenton Thompson was already one of Georgia’s more interesting players. As a headliner of the 2015 signing class, he showed early promise and emerged as an anchor of the defensive line as a sophomore. His second season ended with a well-deserved MVP recognition in the Liberty Bowl. After that impressive performance Thompson seemed poised for a triumphant junior season that would usher him into the NFL.

Life isn’t linear, and it had other plans for Thompson. His withdrawal from classes in February after a peculiar hospitalization was one of the most shocking stories of the offseason. Weeks earlier Thompson had been a dominant focal point of the Georgia defense. In February all of that became secondary to his physical and mental well-being.

Fortunately Thompson seems to be back on more solid ground and will be back in classes over the summer. There’s good news on the medical side also. Kirby Smart revealed at SEC Media Days that Thompson “should be full go” for preseason practices.

While Thompson’s first two seasons make big expectations reasonable for 2017, his offseason setbacks add a bit of uncertainty about the player we’ll see. He missed spring practice during his hiatus, and he would have likely missed time anyway due to some shoulder surgery shortly after the bowl game. It’s great that won’t miss any more time, but there has to be some readjustment after missing time in the classroom and on the practice field. Can Thompson return to the player he was against TCU, and how quickly can he get there? Smart likes what he’s seen so far. “He’s gone out and worked out very hard,” Smart said. “His conditioning has been really good. His weight has been really good. I’m expecting him to be full go.”

Thompson’s readiness will be put to the test early in the season. He and his fellow defensive linemen might face their toughest challenge of the season just two weeks into the campaign.

Recently Cy Brown at Dawgnation took a stab at the top five offensive linemen Georgia will face in 2017. Two of them play next to each other: Notre Dame guard Quenton Nelson and tackle Mike McGlinchey. Nelson and McGlinchey are Notre Dame’s Chubb and Michel: two experienced and talented upperclassmen who passed up likely NFL draft selections and returned to their team for a final season. McGlinchey isn’t just a senior – he’s a graduate student. SEC Network analyst Cole Cubelic believes that the duo “might be the best double team combo” in the nation.

Might be the best double team combo entering 2107. McGlinchey & Nelson at Notre Dame. 1st step splits defender. Nice pad level & movement. pic.twitter.com/9HO3XvmCHX

— Cole Cubelic (@colecubelic) May 11, 2017

This is the kind of matchup that should be a fascinating game-within-the-game: one of the nation’s best defensive linemen against a pair of excellent blockers. If Thompson is not completely back in form, the Irish duo would have the advantage, and Notre Dame’s new quarterback might have an easier time getting comfortable. But if Thompson can hold his own against this offensive line, it could be the game that launches him and his team toward much greater national recognition.

It’s one thing to say that Georgia recruiting is changing for the better. It’s another to see how that’s playing out. I’m just trying to wrap my head around this story.

Georgia has two bluechip five-star quarterbacks on the roster. It would be rare, if not unprecedented, for a school to get consideration from a third in three years.

Yet here we are: Georgia is being considered by, if not favored by, not one but two of the top quarterbacks in the nation. Justin Fields (formerly a Penn St. commitment) and Matt Corral (formerly a Southern Cal commitment) both have high interest in Georgia. Fields is a dual-threat passer from Georgia who has exploded in recruiting circles during the offseason. Corral is a west coast gunslinger sought by the best teams in the nation. Any program would be fortunate to get either. Corral would be another big arm that could thrive in Georgia’s pro-style system en route to the NFL. Fields is dynamic enough that Georgia would modify its offense to make use of his talent (think Deshaun Watson).

The recruiting of Corral and Fields sets up some intriguing chess moves for the summer. Corral is planning on taking visits in July and committing before his senior season. Fields might take his visits a little later. It’s possible that Kirby Smart will have decisions to make both in terms of this recruiting battle and the identity he wants for his offense. Does this timing affect Georgia’s approach? It shouldn’t.

Modern recruiting never stops. The best recruiters continue to recruit through Signing Day – even their own commitments. Because verbal commitments are nonbinding, coaches must always work on their own pledges even as they attempt to flip prospects committed elsewhere. They also continue recruiting positions at which they have commitments. First, they must line up contingencies if their commitments flip or become nonqualifiers. Second, there’s a chance that other prospects might emerge during the process.

That’s to say that Georgia’s recruiting of both Corral and Fields will press on even if one or the other commits to Georgia or to any other school. While we might debate which could be a better fit or have a higher ceiling, the real shame would be missing out on both of them when Georgia seems to be in such a good position at this point. Georgia would gladly take a commitment from Corral or Fields, but that commitment wouldn’t stop Kirby Smart from continuing to recruit the other.

I’ll be thrilled if Georgia lands either – the quarterback room in 2018 would be as deep and as talented as it’s ever been. Even if you don’t follow recruiting, this situation and how it plays out should give us some signals about Kirby Smart’s plans and preferences for the future of his offense.