Georgia and Nate Frazier had something in common Saturday besides a win over Clemson.
Read the full story here
Frazier did NOT have 24 carries in the game yesterday against Clemson, Bill.
Your game summaries always prove to be the most readable, Bill.
Thanks Bill and I LOVE the sentiment about the cheap shot should’ve been called a targeting violation. Those plays are intentional and knowingly with a likely injury as the end-result. Often a targeting penalty is as much the offensive player lowering their head and the defender left with no option. That cheap shot cut block isn’t happenstance and should be penalized accordingly. Onward and upward. Go DAWGS!
CKS was not going to laud Frziers great game lest he get the bighead. He did however turn around and laud Starks great play because he's not worried about him. CKS ever the sports psychologist.
A Great day to be a Dawg. On the other side how sad for Clemson fans who saw their team get whupped and left with a coach unwilling to keep up with the times on portal management.. Grorgia's future is so bright and Clemson is in the shadow.
Tony Tyson
Gibroni88: Yeah, I know. It was 11 carries. That was a typo. Fixed it but the sluggish system the site uses is taking its own sweet time to update.
First of all, we all know Kirby. His take on Frazier is to be expected. But I don't think Frazier's pass blocking will be an impediment to him playing more; he didn't do too bad a bad job in that area. But I do think he needs to improve at pass CATCHING. He should spend extra time on that in practice this week. But here's something I don't understand about CKS: At this point, why not just say that Etienne was suspended for this game? With all the (justifiable) criticism Smart and the UGA program get for how they handle these driving-related issues, what's the harm in saying, "here's how we punish those who violate team rules." I know many will say, "the team knows, and the player knows and that's all that matters." But I don't think that's all that matters. If Etienne had messed up privately, then handle it privately. But his misdeed was a matter of public record. Who or what is Smart protecting by doling out a punishment, but not saying that it was a punishment? I just don't understand it.
