That said, I recently read this article posted on a site called point-spreads.com and again felt compelled to take out my whooping stick to address some of the glaring issues with their viewpoint.
Below are a few of the thoughts expressed by the author and, as usual, my response:
"Getting a good feel on how the 2010 team might perform is a little more difficult. It is known through and around the SEC that head coach Mark Richt needs to produce a successful team or this could end up being his last year. "
Ya know, I'm getting a little weary of the chatter about this being Mark Richt's last year if he doesn't produce a good team. The 2009 version wasn't bad—just flawed—and it's mind-numbing to me how many people honestly feel that Richt's leash is that short at the moment.
Coach Richt has at least two seasons to get this team back on track—next season isn't do or die by any stretch.
"Of course no games have been played, but on paper it appears the Dawgs are a little overrated."
How on earth is Georgia overrated? Outside of some generous chatter by Phil Steele and a few pundits who actually like Georgia as an SEC darkhorse, most feel that the team is destined for the tank this season—mostly due to the lack of experience at quarterback and the youthful inexperience on defense within the new 3-4 scheme.
So, to say that Georgia is "overrated" is ridiculous. If anything, the team is underrated and undervalued by the vast majority.
"Still, we (Point-Spreads.com) see Georgia as the third best team in their division and seventh or eighth best in the SEC."
Wow. They see Georgia as the seventh or eighth best team in the league? Oh my, what the hell planet are these people on and how on earth do I get there (because I assume the drinks must be very good and awfully plentiful)?
This statement not only shows a complete lack of intelligence but makes me question their credibility as a sports betting site.
Seriously, this is the information you are disseminating to the public? Please, tell me what seven teams in the SEC are better than Georgia—aside from possibly Alabama and Florida?
Arkansas?...Uhhh, call me after that game is played in Sanford but, I don't think so.
LSU?...their coach has serious clock issues and their quarterback situation is laughable.
Ole Miss?...No
Vandy?...LOL
Kentucky?...Still laughing.
Mississippi State?...They need a quarterback...and a running back...and a defense...and a....oh please, stop.
Auburn?...Haven't we beat them four-years in a row—just saying.
Tennessee?...This could be a rebuilding year for them as well, not bad, but not better by any stretch.
So, again, what in the world are these folks talking about?
That statement is lunacy.
"For the Bulldogs to win the East they would need to out perform an improved South Carolina squad and still best Florida. Odds are based on gamblers perception and oddsmakers know they can get players to bite on Georgia's inflated odds."
Georgia is 8-1 against the Gamecocks over their last nine meetings. Nuff said.
"If any team in the SEC East is able to top Florida in 2010 it will probably be South Carolina, undervalued at +10,000 (100/1) odds."
(Scratching my head).
How is South Carolina going to beat Florida with 1) no running game , 2) an inconsistent quarterback, and 3) minus two of their biggest playmakers on defense—Clifton Geathers and Eric Norwood?
The Gamecocks aren't any more loaded than the next team, yet, they are suddenly anointed as the next kings of the SEC East?
Give me a break.
The article goes on to say that Georgia could very well lose to both Arkansas and South Carolina—something I doubt very seriously.
I'll be so happy once this season starts because, if my hunch is correct, there will be a lot of people eating crow at the end of the year.
No comments:
Post a Comment