There’s news this week that the New York Times is dropping its Times Select "paywall" which placed a subscription barrier in front of columnists and archives. There is also speculation that the Wall Street Journal, one of the few remaining high-profile newspapers charging for online content, might follow suit under the new ownership of News Corp.

With this news, I couldn’t help but think about Rivals.com and Scout.com. These two networks dominate the niche of college team and recruiting news, and they have succeeded with a subscription-based model. This model was a very natural fit for these networks because they grew out of the 900-numbers and magazines that covered college sports and recruiting in the 1990s. Fans were used to paying for niche coverage of their teams. A much younger Rivals.com experimented with advertising-supported content around 2000, but both sites settled on the much more reliable subscription model after the shakeout in 2001.

I’m not bringing this up to suggest that Rivals and Scout drop their subscription model. It’s working for them. I do have one suggestion though: open up the archives.

It’s been nearly ten years since AllianceSports and TheInsiders networks launched around 1998. Following some name changes and the Web bubble, both networks have been relatively stable and archiving content consistently since 2001. At UGASports.com, this archive goes back into 1998. Among newspapers, only the Athens Banner-Herald offers archives as easy to search and navigate. Subscribers come mainly for current content – what happened in the last game, which recruit will announce this weekend, who are the best high school prospects this year, and so on. But there is also a wider audience of more casual sports fans with interests in a specific player or news story from the past. The sites are already destinations for news, but they could also become important research resources and the "archives of record" for college sports news. Archives can also be an effective marketing tool showing off the depth and quality of coverage that a site offers.

The Times "discovered" what many had warned them about before attempting Times Select:

In a statement, the paper said more users were coming to the site through search engines, instead of directly visiting NYTimes.com. Removing the subscription barrier to content available under Times Select will result in a boost in traffic and advertising revenue from that increase will replace the money that once came from subscriptions, it said.

In another ten years, think about the information that will be locked away behind these subscription paywalls at Rivals and Scout. You’ll be able to take an NFL Hall-of-Famer, look back to the end of his high school career, piece together his college decision, and follow his entire college career before he became a pro superstar. That information might already be out there in various places, but the databases and content management systems at Rivals and Scout pull it all together in one place. That’s just one application for the content and data.

It’s a completely different type of sports fan from the obsessive guy looking for instant news and updates on his favorite team. It’s also a group that probably won’t invest a month’s subscription to satisfy a few curiosities. As the Times found, they will arrive by search engines with a specific query in mind.

Rivals (Yahoo) and Scout (Fox Interactive Media) now both have partners with the experience in the online world to recognize that they have an opportunity in the years of content currently trapped behind their paywalls. Open up the archives, enjoy the increased flow from search engines and writers, and show off your networks to a wider base of sports fans.

No one likes dropped passes. They’re missed opportunities, and one expects a guy playing at the Division 1 level to at the very least catch the freaking football.

Fans of most schools have a tendency to over-exaggerate their own shortcomings and lack perspective and context because they just don’t follow what is going on with other teams. Watch me prove that statement by suggesting that Georgia fans are among the worst out there at agonizing over every dropped pass. Other schools, successful ones too, are dealing with the same issues.

Plus, as well as Ryan has played, things should be even better. BC coaches have counted more than 10 drops from receivers this season, including three in last week’s win over Georgia Tech — when Ryan played flawlessly against Tech coordinator Jon Tenuta’s aggressive, unorthodox blitzing schemes.

That fact doesn’t make me feel any better about losing the South Carolina game, but I’m just about tired of the woe-is-us stuff from Georgia fans since that loss. Does George Gibson’s sell red sackcloth?

Overall, the Western Carolina game didn’t do much to change what we knew about the Dawgs. No one got seriously injured, several players made their 2007 debuts, and the Dawgs got the easy win that everyone expected.

Quarterback play

Matthew Stafford had, on the whole and as you would hope, a better performance in this game. His accuracy improved, and the touch he showed on some passes was exceptional – one in particular to Massaquoi just before halftime was placed just out of the reach of a defender.

Stafford still has a disconnect with the receivers on passes longer than 20 yards. Watching teams from Bama to BC to Ohio State hit some deep balls makes it painfully clear how much we need that element. Richt admitted after the game "that we probably haven’t taken enough shots (down the field)." Alabama has a decent secondary led by All-SEC standout Tim Castille, but Arkansas wasn’t the team to test Bama’s pass defense. Georgia’s ability to hit a deep pass (and make an incredible catch) played a big part in the 2002 win – will it this weekend?

Kickoff coverage

Kickoff coverage is always an adventure. Kevin Butler had an interesting comment after the game about it – it seems as if our coverage guys seek out contact from blockers instead of avoiding it. The typical kickoff follows this pattern:

1. Coutu kicks to the right corner.
2. The first wave of Georgia guys is met and engaged around the 20. No one blows through the protection.
3. The returner brings the ball to the right towards the center of the field and then turns upfield into a huge hole.
4. The returner is eventually brought down around the 35 either from behind or by one of the safeties.

Richt doesn’t believe the problem is one of scheme, "It’s very sound, what we’re doing." At the same time, he is hesitant to replace the current ineffective group of players with ones less experienced. "I believe we’re gonna stay with the personnel we’ve got for the most part and just continue to work hard at getting better at it," he said in Sunday’s teleconference. "It’s hard to throw another guy in there with (no experience) and then he starts making rookie mistakes and all of a sudden you’ve got problems."

I’d say we have problems now.

Plays

A lot was made of the sluggish start and the relatively low point total. I don’t think it was as bad as some (especially Munson) made it sound. Including the fumble on Georgia’s second possession, the Dawgs still scored on 7 of their first 9 drives of the game before they went into complete clock-killing mode late. What might skew things is the fact that Georgia ran only 60 plays on offense. (Moreno was involved in 25% (15) of those plays – more than any other player except Stafford.) The Dawgs ran at least 70 plays in each of their first two games. WCU had a 7-minute drive in the second quarter that resulted in a field goal, but the Dawgs still managed three touchdowns in the period. You wonder how the score might have looked with a few more Catamount 3-and-outs.

Turnovers

For the second straight week, the Georgia defense didn’t create a takeaway. Georgia’s turnover margin for the season is now -1 (2 giveaways vs. 1 takeaway). The giveaway number is just fine, but one takeaway through three games is dragging the bottom of the NCAA stats. All other SEC teams have at least four takeaways.

About the closest Georgia came to a turnover against Western Carolina was a fumble that bounced right towards Akeem Dent but was ultimately recovered by the offense. It’s elementary to say that a big defensive or special teams play could really change an otherwise close game, but it’s true. A big part of Arkansas’ comeback against Alabama was an interception, and an interception also changed the game the last time Georgia and Alabama met.

Misc.

• Brandon Miller took his demotion like a man. He saved a big kickoff return by chasing the returner down from behind, and he also threw some nice blocks on punt returns. I think he even ended up near the team-high with 6 tackles.
• Moreno continues to impress and get a plurality of carries, but he’d better score from 20+ yards out. If the Dawgs get inside the 20, Moreno invariably heads for the sideline. I don’t know why either.
• The offensive line is still a work in progress. We knew that already, but Vince Vance and Clint Boling made the picture a little cloudier with some nice plays.

The AJC columnists have set aside this week to play "House, M.D." with the Georgia program. First it was Jeff Schultz’s diagnosis that Georgia and its coach were soft. Now Terence Moore offers that the problem is a lack of leadership – or, more specifically, someone "who can growl while throwing a chair across the locker room".

Moore’s point I think is closer to the heart of the matter. He does take an odd disapproving view of "leadership by committee" considering that he names several former leaders who were on the same team. Still, I tend to agree that the leadership issue is valid. I think we can put it even more simply: this is Matthew Stafford’s team, and we’re waiting for that big play or moment that cements it. There are locker room leaders, and you do need the veteran guys who keep everyone focused.

At the same time, you need the leaders and playmakers on the field. That the coaches are just as likely to have Tony Wilson as Sean Bailey in the game during key drives tells us that the team has a bunch of almost-but-not-quite playmakers. Go-to guys. Is Sean Bailey becoming one? How about Knowshon Moreno? In the end, though, I believe that the team will go as Stafford goes.

On to Western Carolina

Fans want a 70-0 bloodbath in part as a catharsis after last weekend’s loss but also as a demonstration that the team can really throw, catch, run, block, and tackle. Responding to the nebulous criticism of Schultz earlier in the week, they want to see some sort of "killer instinct" reflected on the scoreboard. If history holds, the Dawgs should win easily but not threaten that 70-point mark.

Mark Richt’s Bulldogs have played three 1-AA* opponents, and the results (at least on Georgia’s side of the scoreboard) have been steady:

• 2002: 45-7 over Northwestern State
• 2004: 48-28 over Georgia Southern
• 2006: 48-12 over Western Kentucky

Even as 1-AA teams go, Western Carolina is no powerhouse, so style points will be the main focus of the game for Georgia fans. With Alabama coming up next week, fans will inevitably compare Georgia’s performance against Western Carolina with the Catamounts’ season opener at Alabama. The Crimson Tide won 52-6. That’s about what I expect from Georgia: a score in the ballpark of 50 points while making it tough for WCU to get on the scoreboard. While we’d prefer a shutout, you never know what will happen when the 7th string is in.

While the guaranteed wave of substitutions will make a direct comparison next to impossible, there are a few stats worth watching. Bama held Western Carolina to 247 yards of offense – 76 rushing and 171 passing. Bama was also effective running the ball. Tailback Terry Grant rushed for 134 yards in his debut with three touchdowns. Will Knowshon Moreno or Thomas Brown have big games? Turnovers will also be something to keep an eye on. The Dawgs have turned it over only once this season – a Stafford interception against South Carolina – but they have also caused just one turnover. While the Bulldog defense has generally been stingy holding two good opponents to an average of 15 points, they could do a good bit more to make plays and cause turnovers. We’ll see if they are able to create some things against a lesser opponent.

* – I’ll still refer to this level of competition as 1-AA. 1-AA was good enough for Erk Russell, and it’s good enough for me. The "we actually play college football with a playoff" subdivision is a nice attempt at rebranding, but "1-AA" reminds us that there is a hierarchy to things and that "Appalachian State" is a Cherokee phrase meaning "Chaminade."

It’s always an interesting exercise to watch a sports columnist try to shoehorn a few quotes and vague observations into a definitive diagnosis and prescription for a team. Jeff Schultz gives it his best shot.

The suggestion that Mark Richt is soft or bland or an unemotional robot isn’t new. It’s been the favored position of many message board denizens for years. I don’t blame them. They just see Richt on television or hear him on radio where he is calm, polished, and even a bit boring.

In fact, Georgia was dealing with this same perception five years ago. In 2002, Georgia beat Alabama in the Bulldogs’ most recent trip to Tuscaloosa in the famous "Man Enough" game. It’s a coincidence on the eve of another trip to Alabama that Schultz does his best Pat Dye impersonation and calls the Dawgs "soft" while questioning Richt’s ability to light a fire under the team.

This is one of those topics that tells you quickly who has spent much time at a Georgia practice or speaking with players about the subject. A Georgia practice isn’t church, and Richt is as intense about his job as any of his peers. How do you last for 20 years coaching major college programs without that intensity? Details like that are no match for a columnist at a press conference with a story in mind:

There are all sorts of theories as to why Georgia lost to South Carolina, not the least of which has to do with Steve Spurrier, needles and a little puppy voodoo doll he keeps on his nightstand. Matthew Stafford was off target. His receivers were off kilter. His offensive coordinator was off his rocker.

But here’s another possibility: They’re soft, and their coach is lacking in the verbal equivalent of a forearm shiver.

Let me translate: "Ignore all that football stuff and let’s run with my pet theory."

Schultz tries to bolster his point with a very selective (and incorrect) memory about Richt’s approach to team discipline.

Richt used to be soft on crime. Telling Odell Thurman to run stadium steps wasn’t going to fix the problem. But it was residual from Bobby Bowden’s school of discipline. Eventually, Richt changed. Even he grew tired of the arrests and the criticism. He got tougher.

Odell Thurman was actually kicked off the team in 2002 for disciplinary reasons and spent that season at Georgia Military College. The Dawgs started the 2003 season at Clemson with eight players suspended. Do you remember the name Randall Swoopes? Georgia’s center of the future was kicked off the team in 2003. Jasper Sanks was shown the door during Richt’s first season, leaving the Dawgs with only a fullback named Haynes to carry the ball. Schultz’s argument that Richt’s toughness in disciplinary matters was a reluctant evolution is exactly opposite of the historical record.

Just as Richt’s approach to discipline didn’t need or receive a sudden injection of toughness, Richt’s personal toughness is grossly underrated by those who just see the public face of the program. A former player wrote on the DawgVent several days before Schultz’s column,

Mark Richt is as intense as they come. He is an obsessive hard ass. And he’s tough. I don’t think any of these posters commenting that he’s too "soft" or "calm" or "lacks killer instinct" have ANY clue what he’s really like as a coach. The renewed toughness of our program didn’t come from VanGorder or Fabris or Garner – it was a mandate from Mark Richt. He is the last coach on our staff any player wants to cross or upset, and the competitive fire burns hotter in Mark Richt than any one person in our program.

I don’t know what measurement of physical toughness Schultz is using. A new offensive line with two freshmen going against an experienced defensive front seven was able to match South Carolina’s running game production. The Dawgs defense bowed up and kept Spurrier and his senior quarterback from doing much damage. The Western Carolina head coach said this week, "I feel that Georgia will be the most physical team we have faced since I’ve been here at Western. They appear more physical on film than was Alabama, so this week will be a big challenge for us this weekend." Sounds "soft" to me.

I also don’t see many problems with the mental toughness of a team and coach that stared a 6-loss season in the face last year and rebounded from a horrific midseason with three straight wins over ranked opponents. They also refused to fold down by several touchdowns to the #1 defense in the nation.

Richt will remind no one of Woody Hayes. He’s not going to get into a trash-talking competition with Steve Spurrier. Schultz and others seem to be waiting on Richt to club a player on the sideline to show his intensity, but all they have to do is open their eyes to how this program has operated for six years. Schultz downplays several times the effects of youth and maturity on this team, but sometimes the answers are just that simple.

While fans continue debating who should be fired, shot, or just merely ridiculed after a loss, we could all probably take some pointers from the prospects who were at the game.

Lineman Omoregie Uzzi has offers from all over the South. His comments after Saturday’s game?

"That loss has nothing to do with me or my situation," he said. "It doesn’t mean anything at all to me. Georgia is still Georgia and it is not a big deal."

Tight end Dwayne Allen also didn’t seem too bothered.

"It was a great atmosphere at Georgia on Saturday," said Allen. "Georgia did not come out on top, but the crowd was great, the team played hard and it was a lot of fun. They lost, but I had a great time overall."

Safety Nick Williams had a pretty level head about the loss.

"The loss doesn’t hurt Georgia at all," he said. "Georgia is a good team and they will bounce back. This is football. Any team can win on any given day. Both schools played hard and Georgia came up a little short, but that doesn’t mean anything to me. I still like them a lot."

By the way, Williams, a four-start safety prospect from Bainbridge, committed to Georgia on Sunday.

Taking timeout from my usual provincial focus for a quick word about the USC-Nebraska game this weekend:

1. Southern Cal shows up for big games. Your best chance against them seems to have them sleepwalk into a game. Build it up into a really meaningful game, and they’re usually up to the challenge. Few teams seem to relish the spotlight consistently like the Trojans. Nebraska can’t help placing a lot of "we’re back" emphasis on this game, but that’s really not the game you want to play with SoCal.
2. LSU (and to some extent Oklahoma) used a high-profile opportunity last weekend to make some noise early in the season. LSU moved into a near dead-heat with SoCal in the AP Poll after whipping Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma jumped to #3 after destroying Miami. With Notre Dame becoming more and more of a non-factor, this Nebraska game is pretty much SoCal’s last chance for a significant nonconference win this year.

With that in mind, I see Southern Cal laying it on the Cornhuskers this weekend. It’s their chance to reclaim some of the spotlight – they are #1 after all – and they have to have noticed the impressive wins by LSU and Oklahoma last week. Getting a nice, big, high-profile win on the road this weekend would do a lot to remind people who still controls the national title discussion.

I do agree that it does seem like 2003 again when LSU, Oklahoma, and Southern Cal seem to be making claims as the top teams (agreeing also with CFR’s observations about the subtle differences between the two seasons). But the season is young, and other teams like Florida and West Virginia will still have plenty to say along the way.

Fourth down calls

I like the new "Water Girl" segments on the Mark Richt show where Kathryn Richt plays the role of the "what the heck are you doin’, coach?" fan and asks her husband a question about the game. The two questions to this point were very reasonable and probably crossed most of our minds at some point. This week, she asked about the decision to kick a field goal on 4th and 15 with 5 minutes remaining.

Most people I’ve read since the game seem to have the right perspective on that call. There was certainly a decision to be made, but few have argued that the field goal was flat out the wrong choice. Most saw a reasonable chance that Georgia could get the ball back in time for a final attempt at a touchdown drive, and I agree.

Earlier in the game, Richt faced another fourth down decision. The Dawgs attempted a 4th and 2 conversion from the South Carolina 32 early in the third quarter. The attempted play-action pass backfired spectacularly, and South Carolina soon drove a short distance for a field goal. This was such a turning point in the game. Georgia, trailing 10-3, had just received the most electrifying run by a Bulldog in Sanford Stadium since Michael Cooper’s breakaway in 2003 against these same Gamecocks. Richt gets so much grief for settling for field goals, but I’m surprised not to see anyone suggesting that a field goal in this situation might have been the right call. Though the first down was tempting, it was just soul-crushing to get nothing from Moreno’s great run. Instead of getting something positive, the Gamecocks soon extended the lead to 10.

What do those two fourth down calls have in common? The focus shouldn’t be on fourth down – it should be on Knowshon Moreno and the subsequent three plays in each series.

In the third quarter, Moreno had just ripped off a run from deep in Georgia territory to bring the ball near the South Carolina 40. He followed that up with a 5-yard run on first down. On the next play, Moreno went in motion leaving Southerland as the lone back in the backfield. Southerland managed just a couple of yards on the carry. Thomas Brown was stuffed on third down leading to the pivotal fourth down decision.

In the fourth quarter, the Dawgs were once again the beneficiary of some nice Moreno carries. He had consecutive 10-yard runs to move the ball to the South Carolina 11. From that moment, Moreno disappeared. Three incompletions and a penalty set up the relatively easy 4th and 15 decision.

I admit that it’s painful hindsight to make the case that Moreno should have been more of a factor in those series after some nice runs. Passes or other backs can be and sometimes are effective changes of pace when a defense is keying on a certain guy. Still, the "what if" of not using Moreno in those situations is as big of a question in the game as those pivotal fourth down calls themselves.

Relishing that great win over UAB

When it was introduced several seasons ago, the pregame video featuring Larry Munson was fresh and gave the crowd a charge. Now, the production is stale and more or less dead air for a couple of minutes. The Redcoats take the "hymn" in "Battle Hymn" literally and play the piece at a nearly inaudible level. But the worst of it is the absolutely forgettable footage that passes for great moments in Georgia football history. Of course you have to tip the cap to 1980 and Herschel and that era. Then we get treated to a series of highlights against…UAB and Mississippi State. Thomas Brown’s kickoff return in a loss to Tennessee is also featured.

I understand that they want to feature current players, but Matthew Stafford has done a bit more in his brief career that is worth reliving than a meaningless mop-up touchdown run against UAB. Nothing from the Auburn game? Massaquoi’s catch for the ages against Tech doesn’t make the grade? The comeback in last year’s bowl game is left on the cutting room floor. That’s just laziness – update the video and keep it fresh. Weekly would be best – there are only seven home games for Pete’s sake. I’ll get by somehow without reliving a dramatic sack of Michael Henig one more time.

I should say that the other video additions during the game have been well-done for the most part. When you get past the Georgia Power or Chrysler advertising, they come at appropriate times when the Redcoats aren’t playing and do the job of getting the crowd stirred up a bit.

"Evil" I can accept

It’s been since 2001 that a team coached by Steve Spurrier beat Georgia. That’s ancient history to most of Georgia’s players. When it comes to Bulldog fans with long memories though, Spurrier is still very much in their (our) heads. How so? Even after a game in which the Dawgs failed to score a touchdown for the first time since 2001, we’re still talking about Spurrier. No South Carolina team since 1996 has scored more than 21 points on Georgia, yet here we are talking about the Evil Genius beating us. Spurrier has been about as effective with his offense as Skip Holtz was. Not many of us know a thing about the guys who have really been a thorn in Georgia’s side. Men named Charlie Strong and Tyrone Nix have been far more problematic for the Bulldogs than anyone named Holtz or Spurrier.

This same point applies in Jacksonville as well. While it will be Meyer-this and Meyer-that, his offense has scored just 14 points in each meeting against Georgia so far. Meanwhile, Georgia has broken 20 on the Gators just three times since 1993. There’s Charlie Strong’s name again…someone find that guy a head coaching job.

It’s going to be the overused stat you hear for some time thanks to Steve Spurrier. Georgia’s 1-4 mark against the SEC East last year coupled with Saturday night’s loss means that Georgia is 0-5 against the SEC East since winning in Columbia last year.

What you won’t hear is that the Dawgs currently hold at least a one-game winning streak against every single SEC West school.

Both bits of trivia are about equally relevant to this year’s prospects and to the state of the program. One will be cited a lot more than the other until the Dawgs play Tennessee in a few weeks.

Last night’s 16-12 loss to South Carolina was nearly a perfect storm of ineptitude on offense. The line had its problems with protection, especially in the first half. Then when Stafford had time, he made several poor decisions and throws. Then when Stafford was close to target, the dreaded drops plagued the Dawgs again.

But when he faced the inevitable barrage of questions after the game, Stafford was quick to fall on the sword.

“I lost us the game,” said Stafford, without hesitation. “There’s no question about that.”

That statement might be stretching it a bit much – as I said above, most players on offense (save Moreno)  could do with some introspection today.  Not to pile on Stafford, but it is good to see him taking a very critical look at his performance last night.  He should – it wasn’t good. 

The protection will have lapses.  Receivers will drop passes.  But Stafford still had the chance to make several more plays than he did.  His growth and progress won’t be linear, and bumps in the road like last night should be important lessons along the way.  We know that he can and will have much better games, but they won’t come without much more work.

Stafford arrived with much hype and promise, and his performance at South Carolina last season stepping in for the injured starter got the ball rolling.  Though he finished the 2006 season much better than he started it, I think he would be the first to tell you that he’s not there yet.  Last night was an opportunity for him to place a struggling and lethargic offense on his shoulders, and he wasn’t up to it. 

Stafford was harsh on himself, but there was no finger-pointing.  “I’ve just got to go back to the film room and do what I can to get better,” he said.  That’s exactly the approach you hope for from the leader of the offense, and, given Stafford’s talent, it’s slightly reassuring to know that he’s not satisfied with his performance either.

In 2nd-and-long (7+ yards) situations, Georgia was nearly twice as likely to run as they were to pass. (11 runs / 6 passes)

Even allowing for the late-game clock-killing strategy, 8 of those runs came in the first three quarters. The results were mixed. Five of the runs went for at least four yards. There were a pair of long-ish runs on 2nd-and long: one each by Stafford and Thomas Brown. Only 1 of the 11 yards went for a loss.

The Dawgs only had one run on 3rd and long, and it was a sack of Stafford in the 4th quarter.

While this stat is probably meaningless, it is a small window into Coach Bobo’s commitment to the running game. Running on 2nd and long didn’t make the Dawgs more likely to eventually earn a first down, but it usually did make 3rd down more manageable. Thomas Brown’s 17-yard run on a 2nd and 27 moved the ball to midfield and set up Stafford’s 3rd down strike to Bailey which turned into a big play (and of course an eventual touchdown).

I’ll be more or less out of pocket for the rest of the week. It’s just as well – it will keep me from dwelling too much on the last game or the challenges of the next opponent.

There will be intermittent posts, but we’ll be back in force after the South Carolina game.

It’s amazing how some guys making plays can make coaches look good.

Now that Neil Callaway has left the staff, the three coaches that catch the most crap are John Eason, John Jancek, and Willie Martinez. Eason gets the blame for a legacy of drops (even when it’s not a receiver dropping the pass). Jancek gets criticism mainly because he follows a linebacker coach who worked with guys like Boss Bailey and Odell Thurman. Though Martinez had a top 10 defense last year, fans remember Tennessee’s 51 points and late drives by Vanderbilt and Kentucky and of course the West Virginia game of 2005.

After Saturday’s season opener, these three maligned coaches suddenly look like Broyles Award candidates. (OK…we won’t get ahead of ourselves.)

The receivers have said that they have something to prove this year, and the early returns are very promising. I saw only one ball I’d consider a flat-out drop, and Tony Wilson did plenty to make up for it. What a debut. Sean Bailey – welcome back. He looked like a senior ready to make the most of his final season. Massaquoi didn’t have many catches, but his blocking and that special teams play showed how an upperclassman makes an impact even when passes aren’t coming his way.

The linebackers were everywhere. If Ellerbe wasn’t in the backfield, he was chasing someone down. Miller was knocking people silly. Curran had an impressive debut. I admit that I was worried about the unsettled alignment moving Ellerbe inside, but there is no question that it worked.

So for the second time in three seasons, a team widely picked as a possible upset special because of a sophisticated offensive scheme gets handled in Athens. We knew that Georgia had speed and talent on this defense, but there was a question whether or not the inexperience would hurt. Being “all over the field” isn’t just a cliche with this defense.

The defense set the tone for the game. Oklahoma State elected to receive, and the Bulldog defense held the Cowboys to a 3-and-out. The appreciative crowd rattled the long-snapper, OSU muffed their punt, and Georgia grabbed the momentum barely a minute into the game. The Georgia defense allowed only one OSU drive over six plays and over 50 yards.

Georgia was well-prepared on defense, executed nicely for an opening game, and made the self-proclaimed “greatest show on earth” look average. OSU looked like the team with the freshmen offensive line. Georgia pressured Reid with stunts, twists, blitzes, and just straight speed from the undersized ends. Howard settled any questions about his ability, and fans now know who Roderick Battle is. Even Lomax and Dobbs had an impact. The pressure clearly got to Reid – he made several throws under pressure that would make Reggie Ball wince. Some of Georgia’s biggest defensive headaches last season came against mobile quarterbacks, and the Dawgs handled this one well.

Here’s where I make the usual disclaimers. It was only one game against an unranked opponent. It wasn’t an SEC game where you only get one week of preparation. Let’s hold off on proclaiming Georgia an SEC contender based on one game. There is still plenty to work on.

All of that is true. But for one game, Georgia had as good of a performance as most of us could expect in a season opener. The coaches had the team prepared, and players at almost every position came through. Is this the best the Dawgs will offer in 2007, or is it just the beginning?

I want to go back to U-G-A,
Back to dear old Athens town,
Back where we say “To Hell with Tech!
Back to where I spend my check.
Want to go back to U-G-A,
Back to dear old Athens town
Want-a go back,
Gotta go back
To U-G, U-G, G-E-O-R-G-I-A.

I was going to add some last minute insignificant analysis, but I can’t bring myself to do it. Athens calls. We’ll see you post-game with thoughts, stats, and hopefully a little video. Whatever happens this season, enjoy the trip the Dawgs take us on, and remember why we keep going back.

Kudos to Marc Weiszer of the ABH for raising this topic. Often a game that is hyped as a showdown between units or players ends up turning on something else entirely. A great pitcher’s duel turns into a slugfest. A basketball battle between dominant centers is won by outside shooting. Happens all the time. There are other people on the field, and the real opportunities and threats can come from places other than the matchups in the spotlight.

Weiszer highlights OSU tight end Brandon Pettigrew as a possible x-factor in Saturday’s game. A good mix of size and speed comparable to Leonard Pope, Pettigrew could present matchup problems for linebackers and defensive backs in the middle of the field. That’s a good pick by Weiszer, and we’ll have to add the tight end now to the list of things to watch.

We’ve been over the Dawgs so many times that it seems like a wasted effort to try to uncover that hidden angle. You could mention Georgia’s placekicker Brandon Coutu, but he’s hardly a secret weapon. With Matthew Stafford in the spotlight on offense, one might even pick a running back like Thomas Brown or Knowshon Moreno as Georgia’s x-factor. Weiszer went with OSU’s tight end; will Georgia’s be as much of a concern for the OSU defense?

Since I don’t know what I’m talking about anyway, I’m going to go out there and make my pick of middle linebacker Dannell Ellerbe as Georgia’s x-factor in this game. He’s played well enough on the inside during the preseason to make the coaches scrap their Brandon Miller experiment. Against a diverse and balanced offense, the man in the middle will be put under tremendous pressure, and I look for Dannell to come through.