Fan talk: Can 2013 Dawgs defense outshine heavily hyped predecessors?

Damian Swann looks to be a defensive leader for Georgia this season. (Brant Sanderlin / AJC)

Damian Swann looks to be a defensive leader for Georgia this season. (Brant Sanderlin / AJC)

Let’s get straight to some Junkyard Mail …

WinderDogg writes: Bill, am I crazy to believe that despite losing John Jenkins, Kwame Geathers, Jarvis Jones, Alec Ogletree, Bacarri Rambo and Shawn Williams, that this year’s Dawg defense might actually play better than last year’s? I know part of the problem early in the season was lack of continuity and rusty players as a result of the suspensions, but with the exception of a couple of games (mainly Florida and Auburn), I thought last year’s D never really lived up to its advance billing. And the run defense consistently was poor from the opener against Buffalo on through the game against Bama. My thinking is that all that hype went to their heads and they didn’t play as hard as they could. This year, with a younger and hungrier crew, I’m thinking the defensive performance might actually more closely resemble the defense we saw much of the 2011 season. What do you think?

I’m hearing that idea about Georgia’s defense actually being improved this year more and more, and not just from UGA fans indulging in wishful thinking. The fact is that the 2012 Georgia defense did underperform, especially the defensive front coached by now-departed Rodney Garner. Do I think the Dawgs will be playing shut-down defense right from the start with a bunch of new starters? No, that’s unrealistic. And with the daunting schedule that Georgia faces in September, the start could be rough. But as Todd Grantham has pointed out, it’s not like this year’s defenders lack game experience (except, maybe, in the secondary). And there’s a lot of very promising talent on the team. Garrison Smith has shown what he can do up front. Ray Drew and Josh Harvey-Clemons now get a chance to justify those stars that were attached to their names out of high school. Many observers already have pegged Jordan Jenkins as a rising star. And then there’s the player I think is likely to be the Bulldogs’ defensive leader this year: Damian Swann, known to his teammates as “Cinco.” Swann is the lone returning starter in the secondary, but he already is a playmaker, having finished last season in impressive fashion. Remember the Florida game? Swann forced a fumble, intercepted a pass and got a sack. In the Ole Miss game, he recovered two fumbles, one of which he returned 53 yards, and got another sack. He had seven tackles against Alabama and six tackles and two interceptions against Nebraska (giving him a team-leading four interceptions for the year). If Swann picks up where he left off, it’s going to be a big plus for Georgia’s defensive hopes.

John V. writes: Bill, The opening kickoff for 2013 being moved to prime time on national TV makes me nervous. Another bad loss on the national stage could damage any momentum we have coming into a huge opening month schedule. What say you?

A loss to Clemson might damage Georgia’s standing in the polls, but early nonconference losses tend to hurt a team less in the long run, especially if they’re to a Top 10 team. Basically, the Dogs’ September schedule this year is a high-risk, high-reward scenario. Still, wouldn’t you much rather see Georgia playing Clemson than some cupcake with a directional name?

Will Josh Harvey-Clemons wind up playing safety or outside linebacker? (University of Georgia)

Will Josh Harvey-Clemons wind up playing safety or outside linebacker? (University of Georgia)

Strong Sauce writes: Mr. King, Enjoy your blog. I’m a Georgia ex-pat who currently lives in Cleveland, Tenn. I co-host a sports talk show on 101.3 FM The Sports Drive, Monday-Friday, 5-7 p.m. … and have a question: We’ve seen a couple of cases recently where we’ve (UGA) recruited 5-star guys whose bodies haven’t fully developed and finished growing, i.e. Josh Harvey-Clemons and Ray Drew. It worked out well with [Alec] Ogletree moving from safety to MLB, but isn’t this a risk? JHC is still playing safety at 6-5 217, and Drew now has his fist in the dirt, learning a completely different position. Do 5 stars and innate talent mean anything if the player will be hindered by learning diferent positions? By the way, I have high hopes for both of these guys. Great kids, too. Just wanted your opinion. Go Dawgs. Sic’em.

Thanks. A lot of kids, not just five-star recruits, arrive in college still growing and needing to build up their bodies. That’s not unusual. Drew, who now weighs 280, basically outgrew his original outside linebacker spot, but he’s had a season now playing off the bench at defensive end and finished last year with 23 tackles, 8 quarterback pressures and a tackle for loss. Plus, he’s feeling comfortable at the new position now. As he told our Chip Towers recently, “I have good size and I can move well for my size. I’m working on my quickness off the ball also. So I feel with my combination of size, speed and power I can be — I don’t want to say a force to be reckoned with — but I believe I’ll do very well this year.” As for Harvey-Clemons, while Grantham is very high on the kid and has talked about possibly playing him some at outside linebacker, so far in spring practice he’s worked exclusively at strong safety and I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the position where he spends most of his time this season since he’s still a bit light for a linebacker. As he bulks up a bit and Georgia develops other talent at safety, a move for him like Ogletree made could pay off for the Dawgs eventually.

Howard Unger writes: Bill, a friend of mine told me he read that if the ACC falls apart, the SEC might not be interested in Florida State. I can pretty much see why the University of Florida would object to FSU joining the conference, but other than that what might be the obstacle to getting the Seminoles in the SEC?

Basically, it comes down to television. Thanks to the Gators, the SEC already has the Florida market in its TV footprint. And as FSU athletic director Randy Spetman noted in a recent talk with ESPN, “Unless you bring in a revenue [stream] for them so that they don’t reduce their conference distribution to themselves, they aren’t going to bring you in. That’s what I don’t think people evaluate as much. It would be great to be in the SEC with our radius of schools and the way our fans travel and their fans travel, but if they bring Florida State into the SEC, I’m trying to see, how do we sell that we bring them enough additional revenue that we pay for ourselves and they make more money off of us?  They have Florida just two hours away that has the TV market here.” In other words, if the Seminoles don’t bring a new TV market to the table, why give them a piece of the SEC pie? Of course, the argument in favor of the SEC taking FSU is that it’s a marquee program with a national reputation. But a good case can be made that if the ACC falls apart, the SEC would be better off adding TV markets by taking Virginia Tech and/or one or more of the North Carolina schools (who would burnish the conference’s basketball and academic standing).

Bubba King (no relation) writes: UGA has been blessed in recent years with stellar play out of the long snapper position. I mean, how many bad snaps can you remember in the last 5 years? I can’t really recall one on a field goal or punt. With Ty Frix exhausting his eligibility and Nathan Theus taking over, I am concerned. There is not a more valuable spot on special teams than the LS, in my honest opinion. It all starts with him, and I was wondering how many guys on the roster cross-train at the position in case something unforseeable happens to our up-and-comer?

OK, I know we college football fans tend to be obsessive, but I’m not sure we need to be fretting about what Vince Dooley used to call the “long snappah.” Theus has been in the program a couple of years and was recruited specifically as a long snapper (though being John Theus’ brother also might have been a factor). So we should be fine. But another redshirt sophomore, Wright Gazaway, also is competing at the position, so the Dawgs aren’t just relying on Theus.

Dennis Felton and the Georgia Bulldogs play a starring role in ESPN Films' latest documentary. (ESPN)

Dennis Felton and the Georgia Bulldogs play a starring role in ESPN Films' latest documentary. (ESPN)

That’s it for this week. A tip of the cap to Mark Fox and the basketball Bulldogs for a great win over Kentucky. Speaking of basketball, if you haven’t yet seen “Miracle 3,” the ESPN Films documentary about the 2008 tornado-hit SEC tournament (in which former UGA coach Dennis Felton and the Dogs play a surprise starring role), you can check it out Saturday at 11 a.m. on ESPNU, 1:30 a.m. March 15 on ESPN2, 5:30 p.m. March 15 on ESPNU, and 7 a.m. March 17 on ESPN2.

Got something you want to discuss concerning UGA athletics? Or maybe a question you want the Junkyard Blawg to tackle? If so, send it to junkyardblawg@gmail.com.

Find me on Facebook.

Follow me on Twitter.

— Bill King, Junkyard Blawg

CATCH UP WITH THE JUNKYARD BLAWG!

Will the Dawgs’ defense be ready for prime time against Clemson?

More Junkyard Mail!

78 comments Add your comment

The Tide is Rolling and Nothing Can Stop it!

March 11th, 2013
9:30 am

I tried to tell you morons all last off season that you did not have a good defense in 2011 and that Todd Grantham would have been fired at Alabama.

New coordinator with half a brain last year could have at least slowed down Bama = National Title.

This is why the penal colony doesn’t win titles. You’re so football stupid and desperate to believe that you are elite, that you don’t see the gaping holes in your team.

32 years….

Just become a basketball school already so you can contribute something to the SEC besides #1 party school.

Bulldawg35

March 11th, 2013
12:52 pm

Yep…..I agree tide rolling, Grantham should of slowed down Bama. All y’all rednecks were doing was running the ball the whole 2 half. All Grantham did was sit back and act scared of getting beat with a long pass play that eventually happened. Against Nebraska was some of the most poor tackling I’ve ever seen. None of our guys though could tackle Eddie Lacey who ran thru us like he was at the park om a Sunday afternoon stroll. For Christ sake, even vandy has a better DC then we do

Bawbie

March 11th, 2013
3:23 pm

Clemons gonna put a beatdown on our young defense….!

Bawbie

March 11th, 2013
3:25 pm

Mark Fox will be toast after next year too!

Bulldawg35

March 11th, 2013
4:11 pm

Does anybody think that the Cleveland browns want Grantham back???

Bulldawg35

March 11th, 2013
4:12 pm

Bawbie…….you maybe on to something homie

Bulldawg35

March 11th, 2013
5:06 pm

Right now, we are behind the 8 ball in recruiting were 7th in the sec. We have not recruited well since the dream team…….damn we stink……Chris Wilson get to work

Bulldogs for Muschamp Lifetime Contract

March 12th, 2013
8:55 am

We are young in the secondary and at linebacker. We have more depth and it is talented.

To think that we are going to shut down Clemson is delusional.

This game will be 80-90 points total. We can only hope we get Boyd to throw a pick or two and that our OL is able to give Murray time and we are effective running the ball to eat clock.

It’s gonna be 45-40 or something like that.We have the offense to do the job if the defense can offer just something until they get better through the year.

AltamahaDawg

March 12th, 2013
10:18 am

I think the issues in the backfield was big part of the story with the run defense. We had to protect them early on. Grantham did a great job adjusting at times, and (as Joey points out) we did shut some folks down, but when we did have to pull coverage in to help with the run, we did get burned a few times.

Plus I believe we had some DL issues, and expectations outweighed the reality. Playing BOTH NG at the same time, should tell us that we did not thave the best situation going on there. Pure mass is/was not the answer. As far as being “better” now, we’ll see, but I don’t see us being in worse shape now.

Sort of like the Oline going into last offseason. Yes, we lost some guys, but they were playing out of position at times. So to think that younger and less expereinced is automatically worse, might be true IF the situation before was all that great. But it wasn’t really. So, (as I said about the OL last year) being better off is not that far of a a stretch.

AltamahaDawg

March 12th, 2013
10:33 am

As far as potentially losing to Clemson. What “momentum” would be damaged? Recruiting is recruiting. SEC east is unchanged. Fan are fans, some will scream, some will not. So what are you worried about? What rivals will say? That the score will make ESPN?

Win or lose, Clemson is a more exciting opener than Buffalo. Stop worrying about about hypothetical momentum. This group of guys have proven that they don’t let one loss casue another.
Nobody is going to go undefeated in the SEC next year, including UGA. Everybody will lose a game. Since 3/4 of our toughest games are early, its a statistically high probality that our loss will be one of these early games. And then a few games later most of the conference wil be right there with us. Then the race is on, per usual.

For ther record, I expect us to win that game.

Bulldawg35

March 12th, 2013
11:33 am

Well I believe we are going to get whipped by Clemson and Carolina…..we should go undefeated if our offense lives up to expectations……..but u know ever since 1980 their has been a missing piece. This year will be the defense and fieldgoal kicking again

AltamahaDawg

March 12th, 2013
12:01 pm

So you obviously think our offense will not live up to expectations against Clemson?

AltamahaDawg

March 12th, 2013
12:02 pm

To summerize: of the defense, the offense, and the special teams, you like nothing.

Dog4Life

March 12th, 2013
1:20 pm

My thing is this-same old tune for me, but one I find is absolutely credible–probably more so this year than last—BALL CONTROL!!! We have a tendency to score to fast; some say that is a good thing, but I see it as a curse. When Richt called the plays we did not score as much as the BoBo offense, but we controlled the ball better and always seemed to get those critical first downs we needed to run the clock and keep the other offense off the field. Our Defense, not so much because of athleticism, but young and learning schemes need to be able to come to the sidelines and talk with the D coordinators and rest. To be on the field 35 or 40 minutes of the game will kill even the best defenses. I would like to see less scoring averages and more clock control. Time of possession doesn’t always suggest a win, but a tired defense does suggest a loss. There are not so many cupcakes on this schedule, at least not early–padding stats are over-rated anyway. Run the ball and not just between the tackles, Marshall more so than Gurley needs the ball in space. These guys are incredible in space. We keep tying them up in between the tackles. We run well and with imagination, we free up play action. It could make our Offense almost unstoppable–but we need to always consider the defense unless it is a shootout we desire. Don’t forget we only scored 21 offensive points against Bama, 16 against Fla, and 7 against carolina. I have the faith that the D will come around, but not if its confidence is broken early by spending too much time on the field, which results in too many points given up.

yep

March 12th, 2013
2:04 pm

Great documentary on the tornado and tournament. Check it out. Showed depth of damage and a very inspirational weekend for all Bulldogs.

AltamahaDawg

March 12th, 2013
4:05 pm

In theory I follow, but……….I think the danger is more so when you keep sending your defense back out there after unsuccessful offensive series. I’ve never really seen a team lose by outscoring it’s opponent.

AltamahaDawg

March 12th, 2013
4:18 pm

The flip side to scoring often and quick is that UNless they can keep pace from the get go…….they are forced to be much more predictable and easier to defend late.

Plus IF the issue is that our scoring too quick, potentially gives up too many quick points on the other side, (which I would take those odds) wouldnt THIER defense also be tired for the same reason?

Again not arguing the logic of ball control. Obviously a 12 play 8 minute drive capped off by a TD, every time, is ideal. But if we hit a 80 one play scoring drive every time, (hypothetically), what difference does it make how tired our defense gets late after we are up by 20?

Bulldawg35

March 12th, 2013
5:24 pm

I think the offense will probably look good against Clemson …..because they are like us…they don’t play defense

Bulldawg35

March 12th, 2013
5:27 pm

Here we go again with the scoring to fast crap….Richt said if the defense wants off the field then they can get more 3 and outs…..I agree with what Richt says more than some delusion Disney

AltamahaDawg

March 12th, 2013
6:43 pm

Our offense looks good against a no-defense…..but we get “whipped”? How many points do you think we give up in that game?

Bulldawg35

March 12th, 2013
7:44 pm

Haven’t u been paying attention, I said we are going to give up 45 points and lose by 3 points….geeez

Dog4Life

March 12th, 2013
7:55 pm

The problem 35 is against the good defenses we do not score quick and often. We tend to more 3 and outs. That by nature leaves us out there too long. If you will go back and watch the games rather than spout off garbage you would have a better idea of the concern. I agree with Altamaha, if it is Gt or some second tier group it really doesn’t matter, but against bama, Fla and Carolina it will matter a great deal. Spurrier said it best last year and I know Altamaha you hate SOS but he was correct. he stated Ga usually scored so quick that our offense can take advantage of their D. Then once we have momentum we can control the game with a few offensive stops and then expose the D–which by the way is the proper way to scheme against us–wear down the D–get a few stops on the Offense and game, set, and match. Keep in mind that a 3-4 defense is not geared to stop the run; it is geared to scheme and disguise multiple blitz and coverage packages to stop a passing attack. Bama’s 3-4 is more geared to a flex with everyone shooting the inside gap. We tend to shoot hard outside pass rush leaving the middle open. IThe 3-4works in the NFL because they have 250 lb mike and mo backers to take on those guards, ours is 230 at best. Having said this, I still believe UGA will be fine. The improvement should be in the middle with faster more agile D-Lineman and better coached now that garner is gone. I graduated UGA and I played D-1 ball so I have some knowledge of the game at that level. I am not Disney, but I am DAWG through and through–so screw you and your GT heritage 35.

Moist Dawg

March 12th, 2013
8:22 pm

Some of you so called “Dawg fans” make me want to throw up. the Dawgs really need to get nasty. we need to run up the score on everyone we can and keepthe defense starters in the whole game. a late hit on a qb now and again would be ok too. sweep the leg, do whatever it takes to make the UGA defense the defense of destiny and champions.

RED DOG 77

March 13th, 2013
12:02 am

Reading giants like “bulldog35″ and “Tide rolling to a sudden stop” simply makes my backside burn……………..Where do these guys get their stuff? they seem to know what the great unwashed out here might pick-up on next year………’n Lacy ran right through you like water…………..’n Clemson gonna smack us in the mouth that August night……..er……….a………5 1/2 months from now…………….Give it a break, young fellas………you don’t have a clue, no one does really……….Georgia Clemson Alabama South Carolina Florida………..and on and on have really great programs…………me? I prefer Georgia………..hope they do well. I’ve followed them from the early 1960 s………..But I couldn’t for the life of me, get red in the face and tell you how they will do in 2013…………and for a 12-2 team sure as hell can’t tell you how bad they were in 2012………………RED

AltamahaDawg

March 13th, 2013
10:09 am

Well 3 and out is an entirely different situation than scoring too fast. (as I had eluded to earlier)

Of all the folks that hate Spurrier, not sure whay you count me as an outspoken one. I’ve never said that. I am critical of his silly comments at times, and the way he scoffs at discipline, but as a football coach and person.he pretty darn good. I hate thier fans, if that counts.

And I don’t recall him saying we scored too fast. Maybe he did, but thats out of context LAST year since the problem was NOT that we were scoring too fast. The scenerio that you are describing (thru him) is simply outplaying the opponent all the way around.

Cannot the same thing be said in reverse. IF you can score fast, and often, are you not then just a couple of defensive stops, or thier offense sputters a couple of series in the game… away from game, set, match? So it’s basically who playes best on both side of the ball.

I’m actually trying to remember a loss , when we played well BUT scoring too fact was the actual problem. I can’t. Thats not why Alabama beat us. They simply had a better all round game. period. We had too many 3 and outs. That’s why we lost. Not the speed at which we did score. Our offensive TD were actually pretty long, multi-play drives. More so than Alabama’s, really.

Again I agree with the theory of “ball control”. Obviously everybody thinks thats important. Coaches talk about that all the time, including ours. . I just don’t see that as a real issue here. (in our losses) We lose when our offense sputters, not when it scores too fast. I guess if they score fast, then can;t again, thats a problem. But the problem is the back half of that equation.

Also you described earlier some ideas to make our offense more effective and to me “out in space” or “setting up the play action”….are all scoring ideas. Not grinding it out “control” ideas.

AltamahaDawg

March 13th, 2013
10:16 am

That being said, I assume………. that with Gurshall AND our Oline a year more mature………with a young Defense, you will see us try to grind it out a lot more this year. I think they will have the confidence that they can be more conservative and still score.

Dog4Life

March 14th, 2013
7:41 am

Alt I understand your logic and agree to some point–however, Ga scoring drives average around 2:00 a little over. My point is BoBo is geared for the quick score. I just want ball control and 4 or 5 min drives. The “D” always need some down time–they have to work harder than the O. As stated I played D-! (never good enough to start, but I was there for 4 yrs)–The “D” expends way more energy. One idea was to run between 70-80 plays and leave the D sucking wind. As stated in my first thread–it is a concern of mine–maybe paranoid, but I worry about not so much ball control throughout the game–but when we really need it in the fourth quarter to run out clock etc….UGA has a low ball possession average–not always bad–but against the Bama’s and top tier teams it usually hurts us in the long run–again, just my own pet peeve. Moreover, for the record, I live in Columbia and listen to the sports show here–Spurrier did say that–and to be honest I agree with what he says most of the time–just hate his genius against us. If you remember I also stated that I thought our O-Line is going to very good this year barring injuries. We will beat Clemson and carolina this year–I am just not sure where we lose–we generally lose at least 1 or 2–so I am unsure who we lose to. Go Dawgs!!!!

AltamahaDawg

March 14th, 2013
9:28 am

Hey, we are not in disagreement that ball control is very improtant. I completely understand how some things are pet peeves.

The basis of my debate about this is not philosophical. It’s that I cannot think of a single loss when scoring quick was the reason that happens. Now i certainly remember 4th quarter, not being able to run the ball effectively to run the clock out. Still though….my recollection of that was not for a lack of trying. It was a lack of doing. In fact I seem to remember a lot more critisism for going conservative late, insisting on running the ball, and giving the ball up. I’ve prefered that we DID try to strick for a score late, personally, in those cases.

And I certainly not disputing the dangers of a tired defense, but it just seems to me that they were tired, out there too long, more so from the standpoint…………………..well let me put it this way….. we agree that we have NOT been able to grind out 1st down late in a games as we should, and that has cost us…………..but I don’t attribute that to being “geared to quick scores”………because we weren’t doing that well OR running it well.