»
Topic: pumper, pumper, can our defense stop the best offense
Replies: 57   Last Post: Aug 25, 2013 1:17 AM by: sgt tiger®
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 57  

pumper, pumper, can our defense stop the best offense


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 8:02 PM
 

in the country enough times to give us the momentum we need? dumper, dumper, will Sammy and Tajh stay healthy to take us to the promised land?

so many factors to consider, but I can just see Mark Richt pulling a Spurrier and just pounding it all night long to keep our offense off the field. It is clearly the formula to stop us unless our defense steps up and forces 3rd and longs and a3 and outs.

Go Tigers, spot the ball and let's get loud. If you are in the stadium and sitting down, you better have a darn good excuse. This guys will be yelling at everyone to stand up the entire game! LOUD AND PROUD!!!


They have a good offense but

[1]
Posted: Aug 24, 2013 8:10 PM
 

We are the best. Watch and see.


Re: They have a good offense but


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 9:28 PM
 

No y'all don't. You have no proven running game and other then Sammy our Receving core is deeper and better then yours.

I'm not trolling just telling it as it is


Re: They have a good offense but


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 9:31 PM
 

"......other then Sammy our Receving core is deeper and better then yours."

Wow! - you are going to regret ever saying that. You really don't know a thing.


Re: Re: They have a good offense but


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 9:37 PM
 

I do with Bennett returning from injury and Mitchell playing full time on offense our recivers are going to light up secondaries. Also many magizenes have our wr core rates higher then yours


Bennett's numbers are not that impressive...


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 9:41 PM
 

And are pretty comparable to Bryant's number from last year, when he was just our fourth or fifth WR

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: Bennett's numbers are not that impressive...


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 9:53 PM
 

Bennett missed half a season with a knee injury last year. He's a Biletnikoff finalist just like Peake. Conley is our 3rd receiver and his numbers are still better than Bryants and Peakes. Our TE has better receiving numbers than Bryant and Peake. He's got as many TD as both of them combined

If unproven potential is what yall want to talk about then hey...our defense will be light years better than yalls. Cant have it both ways.


Re: Bennett's numbers are not that impressive...


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 9:59 PM
 

"If unproven potential is what yall want to talk about then hey...our defense will be light years better than yalls. Cant have it both ways."

Then how's your defense?


Re: Bennett's numbers are not that impressive...


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:03 PM
 

Unknown at nose. Pretty good at DE. Stellar at OLB. Solid at ILB. Scary at safety. Very good at corner. In a nutshell.


Re: Re: Bennett's numbers are not that impressive...


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:03 PM
 

Don't know yet but there shouldn't be a drop off from last season Jenkins was a beat last season and didn't start until late last season. Swan is going to help a lot in the back field and Trey Matthews has been amazing as a freshmen in practice.


Re: Re: They have a good offense but


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 9:41 PM
 

Stop........ you (and your magazines) are showing your ignorance and arrogance.

By the way, you flunk spelling, too. On your future attempts to sound intelligent, try spelling the following words this way:

receivers
magazines
corps

That's all I do for you right now.


Re: Re: Re: They have a good offense but


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 9:45 PM
 

Because you disagree with me I'm ignorant? And I'm guessing Phill Steele and Athlon are below your football intelligence too. And Bennett was injured practice right before we played USCe. Just because you don't like to hear it doesn't mean I'm wrong.


No, it's not because I disagree with you.......


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 9:58 PM
 

it's because you don't know anything about our receivers and you rely on magazines to form your opinion.

Phil has only one "l". You can check that in his magazine..... :)


Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you.......


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:01 PM
 

Ok what am I supposed to go on? Tigernet's opinion? We know yor receiver core isn't as good as ours. You just want to put your hands on your ears and scream no


Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you.......


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:06 PM
 

Why troll another fan bases board? That insecure huh?


Re: Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you.......


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:07 PM
 

I'm not trolling just stating facts I've seen from professional sports analysts


Re: Re: Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you.......


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:13 PM
 

Trolling is a crime around here. The minimum penalty for trolling is neutering and a cup of Doo Doo ice.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you.......

[1]
Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:15 PM
 

Not sure you know what trolling is


Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you.......


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:08 PM
 

"Ok what am I supposed to go on? Tigernet's opinion?"

I wouldn't....... I got mine from watching video.

You have some good receivers and you have some good TEs - but UGA doesn't have the overall depth in quality receivers that Clemson does. Most of the time you don't need it, given the style of offense you play. But if you get behind, you'll need it just as 'Bama needed it against TAMU and just as you needed a little more of it against 'Bama last year..... not to mention USCjr.

"We know yor receiver core isn't as good as ours."

For a few bucks, I'll sell you a clue.

* Your
* Corps


Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you.......

[1]
Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:13 PM
 

You're not A&M or USCe. You don't have Manziel or USCe's defense. StalkinDawg has already proven that our wr corp is deeper


Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you.......


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:16 PM
 

"StalkinDawg has already proven that our wr corp is deeper"

I must have missed that.

* corps


Re: Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you.......


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:17 PM
 

Go look through the thread it's on there


Re: Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you.......


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:23 PM
 

There is no proof in this thread from him, you or me who has the better receiver corps. You'll just have to wait until a week after the game and read the magazines.


Re: Re: Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you.......


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:24 PM
 

Look above


Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you.......


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:20 PM
 

Here are last years numbers for our top 3 returning receivers:

Watkins = 57 catches for 708 yards and 3 TD's
Peake = 25 catches for 172 yards and 2 TD's
Bryant = 10 catches for 305 yards and 4 TD's
92 catches for 1185 yards and 9 TD's

Mitchell = 40 catches for 572 yards and 4 TD's
Bennett = 24 catches for 345 yards and 4 TD's
Conley = 20 catches for 342 yards and 6 TD's
84 catches for 1259 yards and 14 TD's

We actually return more proven production at WR.


Re: Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you.......


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:23 PM
 

And Bennett missed half the season


Re: Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you.......


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:25 PM
 

When you start comparing Wooten to Humphries, Justin Scott-Wesley to Hopper etc...our 4th and 5th receivers compare favorably.


What kind of logic is that?


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:29 PM
 

That is proven production LAST YEAR. That has nothing to do with this year.

Using your logic, TAMU would have not gotten much QB production last year, would they?

And Sammy Watkins wouldn't have scored a TD his freshman year, would he?

And Nuk Hopkins would not have had the year he had last year, would he?

Wow!


Re: What kind of logic is that?


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:34 PM
 

So what's do set your opinion on that your corp is better then ours. Of course you wouldn't youse that basis with a freshmen or a new QB that's ridiculous


Re: What kind of logic is that?


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:40 PM
 

Are you drinking? I'm not sure what you were even trying to say - much less what you said.

Have a good evening. Time for this old Tiger to turn in.


Re: Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you.......


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:47 PM
 

Not sure I do either. But... I'm not the one on another fan base's website debating how superior my team's WR's are. Feeling guilty yet?


Re: Re: Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you.......


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:49 PM
 

About what? I'm not supposed to have a debate on here?


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you.......


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:55 PM
 

It's all in fun. Good luck to you and your team troll dawg.


UGa's receiving corps isn't deeper or better than Clemson's

[1]
Posted: Aug 24, 2013 9:39 PM
 

First of all, Clemson has a lot more talent at WR than UGa does. Watkins, Bryant, and Peake were part of the top ranked WR recruiting class a couple years ago, while a very highly rated guy in Germone Hopper and another 4 star guy in Mile Williams haven't gotten a chance to prove themselves.

The only thing you can really say in UGa's gavor is that they have more guys who have had a chance to rack up stats on the field, but nobody on your team has matched Watkins even in his down year, Bryant has comparable numbers to your number two guys, and Peake and Himphries have comparable numbers to your other receivers. Anybody who thinks UGa is unarguably deeper and better at WR doesn't know Clemson's roster.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: UGa's receiving corps isn't deeper or better than Clemson's


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:51 PM
 

How many yards did Sammy have last year? I'm asking because that was his down year right?


No proven running game???


Posted: Aug 25, 2013 12:04 AM
 

Look up the stats bro. We ran for more yards that you guys did last year. We run just as much as we pass.


Think back three years ago watching out offense.


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 9:45 PM
 

What a difference.

2020 student level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

There's something in these hills.


OBS didn't pound it on us he threw it on us


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 8:30 PM
 

SC had less then 100 yards total rushing that game. The run did held up it's end. The problem was that three of our starters were out in the secondary, hence him going with the better passer at QB for the game, and they exploited that.


our offense is EVERY bit as good as theirs, and our d


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 8:39 PM
 

,well, i am sick and ### tired of hearing that they are sec, so they must be better,'cause that is the only reason that they can possibly use to put their defense in the same conversation as ours. they have 4 guys, according to where you look, returning as starters from a unit that wasn't all that, last year.this is in addition to the fact that in the 3-4 "d" that they run, the nose guard is PARAMOUNT to the success of this defense, and he's gone,too. that means that the heart of the d, along with most of the other players, barely have more experience than the local hs team. as bad as our secondary was last year, i'll still put my money on our guys that are returning, and healthy,for a change. our special teams include a kicker that hit 18 of 19 fg's a year ago including the cfa bowl winner, a punter and k.o. guy that has proven he has a big leg and can put it into the endzone.i guess that what i'm trying to say is that we are gonna win, and not by as close a score as people think.


Message was edited by: sgt tiger®


military_donation.jpg

Add in that their secondary is more banged up then ours


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 8:43 PM
 

combined with a healthy Sammy, a newly focused Bryant, an ever consistent Humphries and Peake and taller targets in Green and Williams and it could be a long day for the dawgs if they don't get to Tajh.


Re: our offense is EVERY bit as good as theirs, and our d


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 9:24 PM
 

I'm sick of hearing about the sec myself. Those conceited mofos.


Re: our offense is EVERY bit as good as theirs, and our d


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:03 PM
 

Clemson > LSU > SCU > UGhey

2020 orange level member

Re: Re: our offense is EVERY bit as good as theirs, and our d


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:05 PM
 

Your so creative, did you take trash talking lessons from a 4th grader?


Re: Re: our offense is EVERY bit as good as theirs, and our d


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:07 PM
 

Ha! No, but I took logic classes @ Ughey. :D

2020 orange level member

Re: Re: Re: our offense is EVERY bit as good as theirs, and our d


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:08 PM
 

Again with the elementary trash talking your major must be creative writting


Re: Re: Re: our offense is EVERY bit as good as theirs, and our d


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:14 PM
 

Hangin' out on TigerNet, eh? Does your wife know about this?



2020 orange level member

Re: Re: Re: our offense is EVERY bit as good as theirs, and our d


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:16 PM
 

Or better yet.....Does his momma know he's in the bathroom looking at the pictures in those magizenes????

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: Re: Re: Re: our offense is EVERY bit as good as theirs, and our d


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:19 PM
 

Seriously what's with the middle school jokes? USuC, UGAy, UGAg. I remember people using these jokes in middle school seems pretty childish to use those types of insults


Re: Re: Re: Re: our offense is EVERY bit as good as theirs, and our d

[1]
Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:22 PM
 

When I type Ughey I'm actually just saying hey.

Your new recruits look impressive.




2020 orange level member

my bad, i guess i should just say u.gA sux! better?


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:34 PM
 

###, didn't mean to hurt your feelings. i guess i thought you were a dawg. you ain't no better than than a dang #### fan,though. i guess it is an sec thing!

military_donation.jpg

Re: my bad, i guess i should just say u.gA sux! better?


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:36 PM
 

Feelings aren't just that your attempt at humor is something a kid would think that's funny


Re: my bad, i guess i should just say u.gA sux! better?

[1]
Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:46 PM
 

You know what sgt? I like you to man. You talk the most #####, but I expect nothing else from a true fan of a team. I don't mind the hate. It's a natural feeling for a natural rivalry. See you in 7 days sir.


much better than pretending i really like your team, huh!


Posted: Aug 25, 2013 1:12 AM
 

i gave up charades a long time ago! see ya at the valley on 8/31. y'all be sure to be there,ya hear!

military_donation.jpg

Re: our offense is EVERY bit as good as theirs, and our d


Posted: Aug 24, 2013 10:43 PM
 

I like you Louie. You've been a constant for me from my first post on this board.


Re: our offense is EVERY bit as good as theirs, and our d


Posted: Aug 25, 2013 12:28 AM
 

Sentry_Frawgh_Ö9 watches slowed-down Spike Lee movies w/ Aaron Murray.



2020 orange level member

Re: our offense is EVERY bit as good as theirs, and our d


Posted: Aug 25, 2013 12:42 AM
 

You caught me. What can I say.


I wish our old defense returned


Posted: Aug 25, 2013 12:59 AM
 

Then this would be a definite win for UGA but now they are in I the NFL


y'all had best be better than last years squad, or y'all can


Posted: Aug 25, 2013 1:17 AM
 

go ahead and ring up an "l". that i can assure ya!

military_donation.jpg

Replies: 57  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Virginia
FOR SALE: (2) Section P and McFadden Lot 1 parking pass...$500. Email if interested. Go Tigers!!

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
2771 people have read this post