I hope some of you get a chance to listen, I'm not going to give any spoilers.

They skeered!

They did some homework and put together a pretty fair assessment. Pronounced our name properly, which I expect from Georgia folks. They did not disparage the Sun Belt, but instead kept things as P5/SEC versus G5. I see that as an improvement in perception.

I certainly understand the host that feels there is nothing for UGA to gain from the game. They can't beat us bad enough to enhance their resume, and they could lose. That's a no win situation for them.

CVAPP wrote:They did some homework and put together a pretty fair assessment. Pronounced our name properly, which I expect from Georgia folks. They did not disparage the Sun Belt, but instead kept things as P5/SEC versus G5. I see that as an improvement in perception.

I certainly understand the host that feels there is nothing for UGA to gain from the game. They can't beat us bad enough to enhance their resume, and they could lose. That's a no win situation for them.

I thought they did a good job as well.

They were not kind to Lamb.

A lot of people on this board aren't either.

He referred to the G5 as "baby seals". Pretty funning.

They did some pretty decent homework and thorough. Their assessment seemed fair.

yosef13 wrote:He referred to the G5 as "baby seals". Pretty funning.

I don't think he was referring to the G5 in that statement. He was referring to cupcakes / gimme games which would include bad G5 and FCS.

I thought they did a more thorough job analyzing the game than most of our power opponents. We got some respect, but I like to believe they are underestimating us in a few areas. They gave J. Moore some respect but discount him as a running back and seem to think they'll shut down our running game. That COULD happen. They do have an excellent D returning. They failed to account for Upshaw's return, which is not a huge surprise since he didn't play last year and isn't on their radar.

I also think they underestimate our passing game. I know Lamb doesn't have a great arm down field but he is very reliable in shorter passes and uses play action really well. I also think our passing was limited last year because of the inexperience at WR. We will be faster and more experienced this year and I don't think Meadors will be our only down field target. Last year he was and wound up being a decoy more than anything. We also used the shorter passes and runs to control the clock, which isn't a bad approach.

I think our pass/run attacks will be more balanced this year, or at least I hope it will be. If we can't throw the ball on UGA, it's going to be a long day. I think we can.

I haven't listened to the whole thing yet...but they're a hell of a lot better than 'ol Cane Shades "Unk Nasty"

Yosef84 wrote:

yosef13 wrote:He referred to the G5 as "baby seals". Pretty funning.

I don't think he was referring to the G5 in that statement. He was referring to cupcakes / gimme games which would include bad G5 and FCS.

"I don't want us playing any baby seals. I want us playing all power 5's"

yosef13 wrote:

Yosef84 wrote:

yosef13 wrote:He referred to the G5 as "baby seals". Pretty funning.

I don't think he was referring to the G5 in that statement. He was referring to cupcakes / gimme games which would include bad G5 and FCS.

"I don't want us playing any baby seals. I want us playing all power 5's"

That's not the context I remember. I interpreted baby seals more like Yosef84. He was suggesting if you want a cupcake game on the schedule, schedule a cupcake. He conceded they will never have an all P5 schedule despite his wishes. His point was why are they playing App when they could schedule a cupcake/baby seal.

That's my take and I won't bother re-listening to it. Like you, I thought baby seals was a rather clever/funny analogy.

yosef13 wrote:

Yosef84 wrote:

yosef13 wrote:He referred to the G5 as "baby seals". Pretty funning.

I don't think he was referring to the G5 in that statement. He was referring to cupcakes / gimme games which would include bad G5 and FCS.

"I don't want us playing any baby seals. I want us playing all power 5's"

At the end of it he says he doesn't want to play Appalachian State, that if they are going to play lower competition it should be "baby seals". They repeatedly refer to us as a good program, but I think their mindset is that if they are going to be playing non-P5 teams they should be playing UL-Monroe, not us. I understand the thinking, but at the same time, three or four years ago Idaho would have been that type of team but they are looking pretty solid now.

CVAPP wrote:

yosef13 wrote:

Yosef84 wrote:

yosef13 wrote:He referred to the G5 as "baby seals". Pretty funning.

I don't think he was referring to the G5 in that statement. He was referring to cupcakes / gimme games which would include bad G5 and FCS.

"I don't want us playing any baby seals. I want us playing all power 5's"

That's not the context I remember. I interpreted baby seals more like Yosef84. He was suggesting if you want a cupcake game on the schedule, schedule a cupcake. He conceded they will never have an all P5 schedule despite his wishes. His point was why are they playing App when they could schedule a cupcake/baby seal.

That's my take and I won't bother re-listening to it. Like you, I thought baby seals was a rather clever/funny analogy.

Exactly. I see where he got his interpretation but I think the context makes it clear he is not calling ALL G5 "baby seals."

My take was this was a pretty typical elite P5 semi-professional blog analysis. They are so focused on "the elite 5 star athlete" syndrome that anything less is well.... below average. We have always been a " sum of your parts team" and that does not register on these guys radar. It will be up to us to make that clear to them. I do think in their analysis of how we perform against P5 they use FCS data that had us at a significant disadvantage (and never mentioned it) and blew off the UT and Mich. as "they don't count." I would say fairly typical. We will add two more P5s to our stats as an FBS team this season so I guess we will see. Grade B-.

Not the most petulant fan podcast I've ever heard.

The fact that they don't consider Samford Division 1 is exactly the reason I wanted out of the FCS.

These guys were close to Wayne and Garth. Yea, um, you know, yea um. yea.

sixtoes9134 wrote:The fact that they don't consider Samford Division 1 is exactly the reason I wanted out of the FCS.

These guys were close to Wayne and Garth. Yea, um, you know, yea um. yea.

Paragraph 1: Yes. A thousand times.
Paragraph 2: Makes me appreciate our guys even more.