Found in today’s Augusta Chronicle…if not a typo, call Marc Weiszer’s bookie now!

• Georgia beat Mississippi State.
• Georgia is bowl-eligible.
• Matthew Stafford completed over 20 passes, many of which were to Georgia receivers.
• No one was able to watch the game live on TV.
• Georgia didn’t wear garish all-purple uniforms.

That’s all I’ve got.

Once you get beyond the coachspeak, Mississippi State isn’t a good team. After all the self-flagellation Georgia fans have done in the past two weeks, we have to make a distinction. As many problems as Georgia might have, they are nowhere near as bad as Mississippi State. They haven’t been able to stay within 15 points of an SEC team this year. They are down, and let me say without equivocation that there is no reason why Georgia should be in a game with these guys after halftime. Of course, I would have said that about a few other games this season. Here are some areas I’ll be watching in the game:

• Stafford and the youth movement: The big news of course is Richt turning the reigns over to Matthew Stafford on a more permanent basis. That in itself leads to a number of questions. Will Stafford spend more time in the shotgun where he is most comfortable? Will receivers catch his passes? Will he go downfield much against a shaky pass defense? Stafford looked fine in relief last week, but even he was not a cure for Georgia’s redzone problems.
  
  Injuries have thrown other youngsters in the mix this weekend. Sophomore Tripp Chandler will start at tight end in place of Martrez Milner. If Ramarcus Brown is unable to go at cornerback, redshirt freshman Bryan Evans along with true freshmen Asher Allen and Prince Miller will see action. Allen will return kickoffs in place of Thomas Brown. If Nick Jones can’t play, Ian Smith wll be the center. We might even see more time for younger safeties like C.J. Byrd if the starters continue to under-produce. A good showing by some young players might leave the door open for the coaches to try even more guys down the road at positions such as linebacker.
  
  
• The three two-headed monster: The season-ending injury to Thomas Brown will affect the distribution of carries; the only question is how Ware and Lumpkin will split time. Will Lumpkin get the chance to carry the ball 20 times? Blocking by the backs will be important against a formidable defensive front.
  
  
• Receiver TD watch: Forget dropped passes for a second. Other than Mario Raley’s touchdown early on against Western Kentucky, Georgia’s receivers haven’t caught a touchdown pass this season. Fullback Brannan Southerland with two receiving touchdowns has twice as many as Georgia’s entire wide receiver unit. There are individuals who have outproduced the entire Georgia receiver corps. An injury to A.J. Bryant doesn’t help their chances for improving those numbers. Massaquoi has been playing better lately, and we’ll see how improved the unit can be after a week’s working exclusively with Stafford. There will be a few wild cards in the passing game. Tripp Chandler and Coleman Watson present a different look at TE. Danny Ware might see more time in the backfield, and he’s Georgia’s best receiving back. And always beware of the dual-threat from (to this point) offensive MVP Southerland.
  
  
• Musical offensive line: If there’s one area where Mississippi State might cause Georgia problems, it’s in the trenches when Georgia has the ball. The MSU defensive line has three senior starters led by Deljuan Robinson. The unit is as good as any in the SEC. The bad news is that Georgia’s already-thin offensive line took a hit last week when Chester Adams and Nick Jones were injured. Jones might play this week, but Adams’ position will be filled by reserve tackle Michael Turner. The remaining linemen have been working without substitution this week, so hopefully they have something left in the tank for the game. An effective day by the MSU defensive front likely would mean another low-scoring close game.
  
  
• What the doctor ordered for the defense: The Mississippi State offense made South Carolina look like Pittsburgh’s Steel Curtain defense in the season opener. The glacial Mike Henig will play at quarterback since injuries have eliminated everyone else. On the other hand, Georgia made Vanderbilt’s quarterback look like John Elway during Vandy’s game-winning drive last week. The good news is that Mississippi State has no systematic strengths or weapons on offense to be concerned about. Jerious Norwood is gone, and nothing remotely close has stepped into his void.
  
  The question then is whether or not Georgia can avoid defensive breakdowns that would allow their opponent to have above-average output from their offense. Mississippi State presents a great chance for Georgia’s defense to get a much-needed shot in the arm before Jacksonville. We also thought that Colorado and Ole Miss would be good chances to work out kinks for later in the season, but those games turned into fights for survival.

When a team struggles, there is often a chicken-or-the-egg questions that comes up about coaching vs. talent. Fans get incredulous whenever you bring talent into the discussion. "We’ve had top 10 recruiting classes forever – how can you talk about talent?!?!?" In the general sense, that’s true. The imperfections of recruiting rankings aside, Georgia has recruited very well.

But when you look at individual positions and the effects of attrition and player development on a more micro level, you see that certain positions can develop personnel issues even with recruiting going well at a macro level. The offensive line is most frequently mentioned in that context, and others have written about that. For another example, let’s look at the defensive back position and the signees since 2002. For the benefit of emphasis, I’ve crossed out the names of those unavailable to the team right now.

A pretty clear picture emerges – those with any experience are almost forced into starting roles, and all of the reserves are at best sophomores or redshirt freshmen. The good news seems to be that there are two strong talented classes coming up through the ranks, and that will help in future seasons. Attrition has taken its toll as several upperclassmen who might be in the mix this year are either no longer with the program or sidelined with long-term injuries.

2002 (Redshirt seniors – 0):

• B.J. Fields: gone
• Olaolu Sanni-Osomo: career-ending injury
• Tim Jennings: graduated
• Demario Minter: graduated

2003 (Seniors / redshirt juniors – 2):

• Thomas Flowers: out for season
• Paul Oliver: current starter
• Tra Battle – originally a walk-on, multi-year starter

2004 (Juniors / redshirt sophomores – 2):

• Kelin Johnson: current starter
• Antonio Sims: gone
• Ramarcus Brown: current starter

2005 (Sophomores / redshirt freshmen – 3):

• Donovan Baldwin: hasn’t seen much action yet
• Antavious Coates: out for season
• Bryan Evans: CB reserve
• C.J. Byrd: seeing more time at safety

The good news is that more help is on the way from the true freshmen in the 2006 class:

• Asher Allen: getting lots of time at nickle back
• Prince Miller: has played as a true freshman
• Quintin Banks: redshirting
• Reshad Jones: redshirting

Chip Towers in today’s AJC reports an accusation by former Georgia basketball center Robb Dryden.

Former University of Georgia basketball coach Ron Jirsa benched a player after he refused to change his major when his class schedule conflicted with practice, former UGA center Robb Dryden said this week.

Dryden claims that after refusing to change his major, Jirsa retaliated by dismissing him from the team and then by benching him after Dryden was reinstated by associate athletic director Dick Bestwick. I recall at the time a lot of people wondering why Dryden wasn’t used much at all after showing some early promise, and I guess this explains it. Jirsa doesn’t deny the incident.

Sometimes coaches are able to work around schedules. Andy Landers moved his practices last year to early mornings in order to accomodate the afternoon class schedules which conflicted with his usual practice time. No one was thrilled with the crack-of-dawn practices, but the team was able to balance the need to practice with the academic schedules of the student-athletes. Several players had to learn the discipline to be ready and alert for early practices, but that’s part of the trade-off of priorities.

It seems from the article as if Jirsa had that option in this case, and it’s wrong that he tried to force a different set of priorities on Dryden instead of adjust the practice schedule.

Life as a college student-athlete is a constant balance of priorities. You must be dedicated to your sport, because that’s the reason why you’re on scholarship. You have academic priorities. You have social and even financial priorities. Many have spiritual priorities. Sometimes you have to choose some over others. I do fault Jirsa for trying to force Dryden to change his major to one more convenient for Jirsa, and I don’t at all like the retaliatory response of kicking Dryden off the team after Robb refused to drop his major. That’s a ham-handed response by a new coach who wasn’t ready for those nuances of the job.

This isn’t always as cut-and-dried as it seems. It might happen that a must-have class is only offered when the team practices, and the coach has already found the optimal time to balance practice with the course load of most of his players. If a player can’t practice, his performance and value to the team is diminished. Should a player who can’t practice expect to play?

"That was the backbone reason why I came to Georgia — to go the engineering school, and I wasn’t going to change my major," Dryden said.

That’s great, and I’m glad he finally graduated, but he also had to remember the means by which he was able to come to Georgia and major in engineering. There was a commitment to basketball. It doesn’t seem though that this situation was completely either-or. Jirsa had the ability to be flexible and chose not to, so it’s quite right that he should have the egg on his face.

Andy Johnston had it right in Sunday’s Banner-Herald. You’re shocked that Georgia lost to Vanderbilt, but you’re not surprised. The Dawgs had been flirting with this possibility all season, and it finally caught up with them against the SEC opponent against whom a defeat traditionally indicates your arrival at rock bottom.

The praise of Vanderbilt began as soon as the game ended. Georgia coaches and players graciously gave credit to the Commodores for "making plays". Everyone pointed out how Vandy wasn’t as bad as their record indicated and had come really close to such a breakthrough win against other teams. That’s fine, but I also wonder why opposing coaches aren’t crediting Georgia for making plays or out-scheming them or taking it to them. Vanderbilt is a well-coached team with playmakers on both sides of the ball who came up big and a young quarterback starting to make his mark. So what is Georgia?

Georgia is not rebuilding, as Mark Richt confirmed on Sunday. Building implies construction, progress, and improvement. Instead, the Bulldogs have seemed willing to blast the foundation each week and start over. Back before the Tennessee game I wrote, "The offense in particular seems to be frozen over decisions that seem much more appropriate for August than October." Here we are going into Game 8, and the same questions persist. The starting quarterback might change again. The unfortunate injury to Thomas Brown might be the only thing that gives some sort of direction to the running back position. Every time a receiver seems poised to take over a game, he fades back into the shadows. You can’t build – or even rebuild – on top of that.

Coach Richt seems poised to make an announcement on that front today and announce some sort of plan for the quarterback position. Will that be the panacea for all of Georgia’s problems? Not at all, and I don’t expect that kind of effect. If Matt Stafford is named the starting quarterback, and I mean in a more permanent sense than what we’re used to, it might at least offer some younger players a chance to lead this team.

Questioning leadership is an easy target for fans because it’s more or less subjective. Poor results? Must be a lack of leadership. Leadership is a vague concept, but usually it comes down to a context of trust. We trust someone to catch a touchdown pass. We trust them to make a key block or a tackle or a deflection. We trust them to show up with great effort in practice and the weight room. We trust them to show up for class and stay out of trouble. Often upperclassmen become leaders by virtue of their experience, but we frequently see younger players in leadership roles because their teammates discover early on that they can depend on them to make plays.

I think what fans are really asking for is reliable playmakers, and there don’t seem to be many in the ranks of the upperclassmen. The senior at quarterback can’t carry the offense. The senior at tight end still struggles with drops. The senior at defensive end hasn’t been heard from in games. The senior at offensive tackle is a loose cannon. Postgame quotes from senior Ray Gant help to illustrate what is lacking from the upperclassmen on the team.

"We weren’t ready for the challenge that they brought to us, and by the time we did realize it was going to be a fight, it was too little, too late," he said.

That says a ton. Georgia wasn’t ready…for Vanderbilt. After losing to Tennessee and barely surviving two earlier games against unranked opponents, they couldn’t get ready and motivated to respond. Gant continues,

"I thought it was a wrap. I thought it was a wrap," Gant said. "Emotions were high. I just knew it was over from there. Somebody had to make a play, we did it, and I just knew it was over. After that, I don’t know what happened. I guess we melted down at the end."

I’ll be honest and say I also felt a great sense of relief after Taylor’s interception. The Dawgs were back on top and had the crowd and momentum back. But there were over nine minutes remaining in the game. Georgia’s defense hadn’t done much before that interception to stop Vandy in over two quarters. It was far from over. The lack of a killer instinct and no purpose to finish at the end wasn’t just the story for the defense. The offense had a chance to seal the win but couldn’t even after a facemask penalty bailed them out. The coaches played for the field goal and opened the door for Vanderbilt’s winning drive. Offense, defense, special teams, coaching – it was a true team effort when Gant says "we melted down at the end."

So is that leadership? Coaching? Talent? Haitian voodoo? A little of everything?

Coach Richt hesitates to use the "rebuilding" label because there’s still quite a bit of this season left. I’m not ready to write the year off. Even if it’s not a championship season, the current state of the team doesn’t have to be how this team is remembered. "When you start talking rebuilding, you start telling the seniors their year is not that important," Richt said. That’s true, but their senior year is not everything. I’m not one to join the "fire/bench everyone" mobs, but a loss to Vanderbilt (no matter how much you build them up) by a ranked team is usually a sign that something’s wrong and a signal to make some adjustments. The size and scope of those adjustments is up to Richt who has probably earned the most trust of anyone involved in this story. The indication that we might finally be moving past this paralyzing starter-of-the-week loop is a good first step.

PS…I’m not sure if I’ll watch the CSS rebroadcast on Tuesday, but I’m fairly certain that analyst Buck Belue won’t make as much of a horse’s ass of himself as this Miami guy did.

Where are you this morning?

1. DENIAL
2. ANGER
3. BARGAINING
4. DEPRESSION
5. ACCEPTANCE

I’m surprised no one has brought this up. While we’re looking for somewhere to place the blame for Saturday’s loss, we’re overlooking something, and it hurts to say so as a proud American. I can buy the Cherrishinski, and Adams is always a worthy scapegoat, but let it be noted that we’re now a solid 0-2 with an average 41 PPG against us when the U.S. Army Infantry Command Exhibition Parachute Team from Fort Benning (also known as the “Silver Wings”) parachutes into Sanford Stadium.

It was an awesome show, and God love them for their service, but they’ve been omens of doom from above.

Photo: UGASports.com

Like most, I spent most of the weekend trying to make sense of the Tennessee game. For the impartial observer, it had to be a hell of a show. Huge point swings, lots of scoring, big plays in special teams and the passing games…just a roller coaster ride. You can imagine how it was for those of us in the stands.

Obviously Tennessee’s touchdown at the end of the first half was crucial. They ate up nearly the final four minutes of the first half and turned a 24-7 deficit into a manageable 24-14 score while draining much of the momentum Georgia had built up.

From there, we entered the perfect storm of a meltdown. For a collapse this complete, everyone had to contribute. First, there were the kickoff returns to the 5. Then there were the interceptions on Georgia’s own doorstep. Top it off with a complete inability to pressure the quarterback, add in a blocked punt in then endzone, and you have a recipe for a 37-point second half.

Ching thinks Georgia got suckered into a "land war in Asia" strategy. "They let themselves get caught up in a game they had no business trying to play and it caught up with them in the second half." That is, they decided to get into a shootout with Tennessee. I don’t mean to come off like I’m sniping at Ching. He’s one of the few pros who puts something opinionated out there that’s worth commenting on, so he’s often going to be referenced here. I see where he’s going, but I didn’t see things quite that way for a couple of reasons:

• We did throw quite a bit more in the second half as he says, but many (at least eight) of those pass attempts came when it was panic time late in the fourth quarter.
• Though we were in a shootout in terms of the score, the Dawgs generally drove the ball with patience. They only had three (four if you count take-a-knee time at the end of the first half) drives in the first half. That’s chewing up some clock. The exception of course was the first TD drive where Tereshinski threw completions of 46 and 34 yards and nearly half of his 164-yard total. (aside…that 34-yard drive-saving pass to Massaquoi from the 15 might have eclipsed Cox’s strike against Colorado as Georgia’s best pass of the season.)
• While the game was still in doubt in the second half, Georgia relied heavily on the effective twin-tight formation. They still threw from that formation, but the attempt to play power football was still there right up to the point of the blocked punt.
• Poor field position (inside our own 20) makes defenses quite a bit more aggressive, especially against the run.

That said, I think it’s a valid point that Georgia might have believed a bit too much in their passing game. Tereshinski got 107 of his 164 yards on three fist-half passes, and putting the game on his shoulders in the second half led to four fatal turnovers. The rest of his nine completions only netted 57 yards – just 35 in the second half. 12-of-20 for 164 was a career night for him, but let’s never use intangible phrases like "leader who manages the game well" again. Georgia’s leadership and production on offense came almost solely from the running game in the second half when they badly needed to stop the bleeding.

Most disappointing was the lack of pressure on Ainge. Any coverage scheme, zone or man, will break down when the quarterback has all day to throw. Moses and Johnson weren’t much of a factor. If they were double-teamed, then the tackles and linebackers did nothing with the openings caused by the double-teams. Georgia’s defensive players and staff should have to see this quote from Eric Ainge until it is seared onto their eyeballs: "I can’t say that I ever felt the pressure. Football is easy when you have that much time."

I’ll stop there. Every area of the team can be torn a new one over this game. I don’t want to be the guy at your tailgate who got back into the Budweiser after the game and held court for an hour whether anyone was listening or not about who should be fired, who should never suit up again, and why we’ll never be competitive in the SEC so long as Richt does things the same way. I’ll bet we all had one of those at our tailgates. I hope for your sake it wasn’t you.

This has to be how Tennessee fans felt in 2003 after Sean Jones’ fumble return started a string of 28 Georgia points in little more than 15 minutes.

I’d say the Dawgs have two games ahead to get ready for the stretch run at the end of the season, but we know now that we can’t take Vandy or Mississippi State as sure wins. Times like this are when Richt earns his money. Tennessee showed us with the hiring of David Cutcliffe and this season’s improvement in the Tennessee offense that coaching does matter. Richt said on Sunday that "there are an awful lot of things that can happen in this race, and the race is on, and it has really just begun." That’s very true just halfway into the season, but some adjustments and improvements are called for if the Dawgs are going to be able to compete in this race.

I don’t get the people who are treating LSU as a mortal lock against Florida. Though LSU has steamrolled the weaker teams on its schedule to this point, they looked very familiar against Auburn: no running game and no playmakers in the passing game. Florida’s offense has put up over 20 points against both Tennessee and Alabama – quality defenses. I’m not so sure that Florida wins. The biggest key will be their start. They will find it much tougher playing from behind against LSU. I think the Florida defense is getting overlooked. They have as much ability to shut down LSU as Auburn did, and the LSU offense hasn’t looked particularly effective in their last two games against better SEC competition (Georgia last year and Auburn this year).

It’s Friday, and I’m still trying to figure out the reasoning behind naming Tereshinski the starter. A few separate thoughts:

• He hasn’t faced game action in a month. He hasn’t faced SEC-quality pressure in nearly a year except for a single series against SC. There is more to being ready than having a pain-free ankle.
• Even if he knows the playbook better than anyone and can make perfect reads and checks, there is still the question of executing those reads and checks. The same delivery problems will still be there.
• I’ve seen it said dozens of times that Tereshinski "manages the game." What am I not seeing here? What, from his body of work, has been exceptional in the area of managing game situations?
• I also don’t buy the "loyalty" or "nepotism" reasons some have grasped at in an attempt to explain the move. There much be some solid football reasoning behind it. There must be something JT3 is expected to do or bring that gives us a better chance against Tennessee than one of the other quarterbacks. I’m just not seeing what it is.
• I’m really hoping he performs well because I want the Dawgs to win.

So a bunch of students want to organize and wear black to the game. Instead of "blackout", we’ll call it "wearing shirts of color". I’ll be happy if the students are just in the stadium before the Alma Mater. Aside from the utter Gamecockishness of it, I have to appeal to the superstitious nature of sports fans. Why on earth someone would wear a shirt that hasn’t had its good luck thoroughly vetted in prior games to a game of this magnitude is foreign to me. I believe the majority of "(color)outs" fail not because they’re cheesy or a sign of an inferior team putting all their eggs in one basket (OK, those work too) but because thousands of fans willingly leave proven good luck garments at home in order to participate.

Some students we’ve talked to this week with their finger on the pulse defend the plan as 1) a show of "unity" and 2) what’s wrong with students showing some excitement for the game? First, there’s not much more unity than the sea of red at most home games. Black is a move in the opposite direction from unity. Second, if students can’t be at a frenzy for a night nationally-televised SEC game between two top 15 programs without a fresh wardrobe, stay out of the ticket lottery next year and let some serious football fans get the student tickets.

A stat that has been thrown out a lot when talking about the Georgia offense’s struggles is the SEC-worst 29.8 third down conversion rate. That’s awful. As Buck Belue pointed out on Tuesday and others have mentioned, what you do on first and second down has a lot to do with your ability to convert third downs and sustain drives. The stats from the Ole Miss game are an ideal case study on that point.

Georgia had 25 first down plays in the Ole Miss game.

• Three of those plays were either at the goal line or taking a knee at the end of the game, so we’re talking about 22 first-and-tens.
• 12 of 22 first-and-tens were runs. Five were complete passes, five were incomplete passes. Three of those first down incompletions came on consecutive drives in the first half. All resulted in three-and-outs.
• Penalties gave Georgia two 1st-and-15+ situations. They converted neither.
• Georgia gained first down yardage (ten or more yards) on three 1st-and-10 opportunities. All were in the second half. Two runs, one pass.
• Georgia had ten offensive drives in the game. They did not get two first downs in a series until the last drive of the first half. They had at least two first downs in four out of five second half drives. Nice improvement at sustaining things (and no small reason why Georgia took over the game).

Here are the keys:

• The Dawgs gained at least four yards on nine of those plays (41% of first-and-ten opportunities).
  When the Dawgs gained at least four yards on first down, they always sustained the drive with another first down.
  This point applies regardless of run or pass. Georgia had two first down completions (both to Southerland) that led to 2nd-and-7+ situations. They converted neither.
• On the 13 occasions where Georgia faced 2nd and 7 or longer, they ended up with a first down on only four occasions. That’s less than 25%.

The brilliant spotlight on the quarterback situation is keeping another position shakeup somewhat in the dark. What’s interesting is how open and direct the criticism of a particular player is and how well that player has taken it.

Ole Miss was successful in gashing the Dawgs straight up the middle with the running game. Danny Verdun-Wheeler was starting at middle linebacker in place of the injured Jarvis Jackson, and it just wasn’t his night. Several times he was the first guy in the gap and even had a chance to stop the back in the backfield, but he couldn’t finish the tackle or gave up several yards before he could bring the runner down. Coach Richt saw what we did.

"I think Danny Verdun understood what to do pretty much, but when it came to the moment of truth, the human equation, linebacker versus running back, we didn’t knock him back, he knocked us back. It wasn’t just Danny, but Danny was at the point maybe more than some of the other guys were. We’ve got to be more physical tacklers."

He was right. Danny often got himself in the right place to make a play. He’s a good experienced linebacker, and the coaches will tell you that he is the most versatile of any of the LBs. But he’s not the physical presence that we’re used to in the middle. That’s what Richt is hoping for as Jackson returns this weekend. "Jarvis has been the guy I think can really run through ballcarriers," he said. "He tends to really be the big-hit guy for us. I’m thankful he’ll get the opportunity to get back in."

To his credit, Danny responds as you’d hope a veteran would. Ching quotes him, "I was in position, I just missed the tackle. I’ve just got to work hard this week and prepare a whole lot better this week." You hope that the young receivers, who don’t have the benefit of that experience, can take the same approach with all the heat they’re getting this week.

Part of the reason why Verdun-Wheeler is coming off the bench instead of moving back to an OLB position is the play of Brandon Miller. Miller had one of his best games at Ole Miss and was a big factor as the Dawgs eventually limited the success of the Rebel running game. Tony Taylor has been great most of the year. Other than getting frozen in place on a long run by the Colorado QB, Taylor has been a tackle machine.

The linebackers will be a big part of the story on Saturday. Tennessee has had mixed success running the ball. They struggled against Florida, but they’ve rebounded nicely in their past two games. There have been a series of injuries to the backs and the line. Georgia must have the advantage in the running game as they did last year. If Tennessee can run the ball well on the Dawgs, that means less pressure on Ainge, and Ainge with time to throw can be particularly effective. Georgia’s linebackers will also have to be sure tacklers as the Vols have shown a strong ability to turn short-yardage plays into big ones.

The Vols present a different kind of challenge for Georgia. It’s really the first quality passing game Georgia has seen. There have been good players like the Western Kentucky quarterback or Rice at South Carolina, but Georgia’s defense hasn’t seen anything like the combination of Ainge, Swain, and Meachem. That’s why controlling the running game is so high of a priority – defense will be somewhat easier if the Vol offense can be made more one-dimensional. If Coker and/or Foster can have some of the success that Colorado and Ole Miss had running the ball in the first half, it could be a bad day for the Georgia defense. With Colorado and Ole Miss, we didn’t especially have to worry about a potent passing attack.

Nearly halfway into the season, it’s time to borrow some words from that great basketball coach Norman Dale.

"This is your team."

That’s not to suggest complacency or even resignation. It’s just time to recognize and deal with what the Dawgs do and don’t have, and it’s time to put notions built on preseason daydreams aside. The defense is solid if not dominant, but there are questions of speed and tackling. The offense has some promise but seems to have emerged from this early season cocoon as a moth rather than a butterfly. I suppose some kind of major transformation is possible, but it’s more likely that improvements from here on out will be in small pieces and adjustments. So with that in mind, our outlook has to be how this team – this team – can win and have a successful season.

Yes, after all of the hand-wringing, it’s still possible for this team to have a very successful season. They’re already 5-0. Winning ugly but still winning. It’s much too soon to cash in the chips on the season, and it’s absurd to start talking as if this team were already out of the SEC race.

Along those lines, I have to take issue with the usually-solid analysis of David Ching. He suggests that it might be best to have Tereshinski in place for the Tennessee game in order to insulate the freshmen from a potentially bad experience. "If the offense continued to play this weekend the way it has for the last three weeks, the beating Georgia would likely take against Tennessee would be a big shot for the freshmen’s confidence." Ignoring the impact on the freshmen’s confidence of yanking them around and relegating them back to the bench, I can’t imagine that the quarterback for the Tennessee game would be anyone other than the guy with the best shot to win the Tennessee game.

If there is one area of concern for me, it’s this lack of direction. The offense in particular seems to be frozen over decisions that seem much more appropriate for August than October. Kregg Lumpkin, on limited carries, has the first 100-yard game since early 2005, and we still can’t commit to him without the hemming and hawing. The quarterback situation is no less settled than it was six weeks ago. Name the top two receiving targets. If it were Tennessee, that would be simple: Meachem and Swain. Florida – Caldwell and Baker. Georgia? Goodman and Milner? Or Bryant? Harris might be in there one week. Massaquoi was supposed to be the main threat, how about him? Durham?

Ideally, the Dawgs would have taken the last three games after surviving South Carolina to build an identity and go into the Tennessee game with a head of steam. That opportunity has been lost now. This is not an instance where a multitude of options is a good thing – so many options actually mean that you have no options when it comes to a dependable set of performers. With what we’ve seen so far, we know that all of the pieces have been there in some form. The OL played well at South Carolina. Lumpkin played well at Ole Miss. Stafford, Cox, JT3, and most of the receivers have had their moments. Very little of it has come close to happening in the same game – I think South Carolina might be the best effort from the offense.

Sure, they gave Auburn a scare.

But note which way they were headed on the final drive of the game. Yep…right into the Endzone of Death. There was simply no way they were getting into that endzone, and history tells us that they would come agonizingly close to scoring.

Sure enough, a certain touchdown pass fell through the hands of tight end Jared Cook.

Via the Vol blog Loser with Socks…

Can’t disagree with many of them. The miserable failure that is the South Carolina “blackout” should be somewhere on there, but you’ve gotta choose five.

We’ll see his #1 choice up close and personal this weekend. Been a while since I’ve been to Oxford, so I’ll have to see how the Grove and everything else has changed. I do have to wonder though…any place where portable generators aren’t welcome is a bit suspect. I couldn’t imagine a tailgate now without a few TVs going.