Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
pumper, pumper, can our defense stop the best offense
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 57
| visibility 1

pumper, pumper, can our defense stop the best offense


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!!!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

They have a good offense but


Aug 24, 2013, 8:10 PM

We are the best. Watch and see.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: They have a good offense but


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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: They have a good offense but


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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Re: They have a good offense but


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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Bennett's numbers are not that impressive...


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

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


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?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:03 PM [ in reply to Re: Bennett's numbers are not that impressive... ]

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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Re: They have a good offense but


Aug 24, 2013, 9:41 PM [ in reply to Re: Re: They have a good offense but ]

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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


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..... :)

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:06 PM

Why troll another fan bases board? That insecure huh?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:07 PM

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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:15 PM

Not sure you know what trolling is

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:08 PM [ in reply to Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you....... ]

"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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:16 PM

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

I must have missed that.

* corps

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:17 PM

Go look through the thread it's on there

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:24 PM

Look above

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:20 PM [ in reply to Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you....... ]

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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:23 PM

And Bennett missed half the season

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

What kind of logic is that?


Aug 24, 2013, 10:29 PM [ in reply to Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you....... ]

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!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: What kind of logic is that?


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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: What kind of logic is that?


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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:47 PM [ in reply to Re: Re: No, it's not because I disagree with you....... ]

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?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:49 PM

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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:55 PM

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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 9:39 PM [ in reply to Re: They have a good offense but ]

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.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:51 PM

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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

No proven running game???


Aug 25, 2013, 12:04 AM [ in reply to Re: They have a good offense but ]

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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Think back three years ago watching out offense.


Aug 24, 2013, 9:45 PM [ in reply to They have a good offense but ]

What a difference.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

There's something in these hills.


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


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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


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 flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Add in that their secondary is more banged up then ours


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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 9:24 PM [ in reply to our offense is EVERY bit as good as theirs, and our d ]

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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:03 PM

Clemson > LSU > SCU > UGhey

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:05 PM

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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:07 PM

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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:08 PM

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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:14 PM

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



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


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????

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:22 PM

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

Your new recruits look impressive.




flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:34 PM [ in reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: our offense is EVERY bit as good as theirs, and our d ]

###, 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 flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:36 PM

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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:46 PM [ in reply to my bad, i guess i should just say u.gA sux! better? ]

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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


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 flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 24, 2013, 10:43 PM [ in reply to Re: our offense is EVERY bit as good as theirs, and our d ]

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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 25, 2013, 12:28 AM

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



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 25, 2013, 12:42 AM

You caught me. What can I say.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I wish our old defense returned


Aug 25, 2013, 12:59 AM

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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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


Aug 25, 2013, 1:17 AM

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

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 57
| visibility 1
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic