Leave Samuel alone, people!

He's 6'2", 240lbs, and runs a sub 4.5 forty, and he's played running back before. So, given the ridiculous inexperience and lack of depth at running back, it might make sense to at least entertain the idea of moving Richard Samuel back to running back. If you missed it, he apparently tweeted earlier that he "has a tough life changing decision to make," and that has most wondering if the coaching staff has asked him to move back to his original position (original meaning the position he first played at UGA).

Best to just leave him be.

First, although he showed a couple of glimpses of what could be (a long TD run against Arkansas in 2009 was something to watch), it never seemed like he really had the vision nor the balance to play running back in the SEC. He was moved from RB to LB due, in part, to this fact, although he was also likely to be behind Washaun Ealey and Caleb King anyway.

Second, while I'm usually in the camp of having players do what's best for the team, I think doing what's best for Richard Samuel is OK in this case. He's got a chance to really settle in (remember, he's just a junior) and put his incredible size and speed to use at linebacker. He would seem to be just too talented to be a guy you move around in order to create a little depth.

It's a tough situation, and if the coaching staff did indeed ask him to make the switch, it couldn't have been easy for them. I imagine it was sort of a hat-in-hand approach.

"Ummm, yeah, remember that thing a couple of years ago, where we said your future was on defense? Soooo, we need you to forget that ever happened and move back to running back."

I suppose the bottom line is, if the staff feels that there's no way the Dawgs can have an effective offense with Samuel at RB, then I suppose you've got to move him. However, if they're main impetus is to move him in order to feel just a little better about things, then leave poor Richard alone.

When you get that notion, put your backfield in motion

A little "Da Butt" for your Wednesday morning, but apropos for Georgia's offense this fall, given a potential problem at O-Line and inexperience at RB.

Under Richt and Bobo, Georgia has been one of the few schools to really make use of the fullback position over the past several years. In an era of spread offenses and wide open passing games, the fullback has become sort of a forgotten position for many teams, where the need for a bruising lead blocker is not needed. In addition, the Dawgs have gotten many a first down by calling the fullback's number out of the backfield on a quick screen or swing pass.

The switch of Bruce Figgins from the ridiculously deep tight end position to fullback presents some interesting possibilities, as well as some solutions for the aforementioned (potential) issue at O-Line and RB.

Figgins could be a huge asset in 3rd and long situations, as the former tight end was known for his blocking. And, at 6'4, 272 (we'll see if that sticks by the time kickoff rolls around), he'd be nearly impossible to simply run over en route to the QB. Further, as a 5th year senior whose primary responsibility has been blocking, Figgins ought to have various blocking techniques down pat. He also has plenty of experience catching the ball. For, despite having only 9 career receptions, he's spent a significant portion of practice time in pass-catching drills.

That's not to discount Zander Ogletree. The sophomore played sparingly last season, but coaches really like his effort and enthusiasm. At 5'9, 224lbs, he's not exactly the prototypical size for a FB. However, generally speaking as a lead blocker, the FB only need hit the hole, pick out his assignment, and engage him in a stalemate long enough for the ball carrier to speed by.

Whoever the personnel, expect Georgia to continue to utilize the fullback, and possibly to expand his role.

Where does Georgia's O-Line (lack of) depth come from?

It's no secret that Georgia's offensive line depth chart is about as barren as the Best Buy in Pennsylvania Dutch country.

I was curious what our luck has been like regarding the OL recruits going back to 2007 (that would be the year that Justin Anderson, who's penciled to start at RT, signed, among others).

Here's a list of O-Linemen we signed from 2007-2010 that are no longer with the team. I've ruled out those that have either graduated or left early for the NFL, and focused solely on those who didn't make it to the end of their college careers in a 'normal' way.

Ben Harden
Chris Little (was thought to be the stud of the OL class)
Tanner Strickland
Trinton Sturdivant (would have been starting LT)
AJ Harmon
Jonathan Owens
Kwame Geathers (moved over to DL pretty quickly, so a bit different situation)
Brent Benedict

So, basically, if the Dawgs even had 1/2 of those guys, the O-Line depth wouldn't be a non-issue.

Everybody has attrition, bad injuries, and so forth, but this is borderline ridiculous. At any rate, that's where we are.

If Richt manages to survive this season and beyond, the staff is going to be forced to up the ante on O-Line signees. Simply put, until their luck starts turning around, they're just going to have to offer more linemen, and probably even offer some linemen that would, in an ordinary situation, be considered "borderline" talent-wise, which could work out anyway. After all, there are a LOT of linemen in the NFL that played at places like Nevada-Reno, Fresno St, and Wake Forest.

If losing CK4 is a big problem, it's only because there are bigger problems

Apologies for the somewhat cryptic title. Allow me to hash this out a bit.

I certainly don't mean to trivialize the role of a running back, be it running the ball (duh), catching the ball out of the backfield, or in pass protection. A back who can do all three effectively can have a significant impact in improving the fortunes of his team in a game or season.

The problem is that Caleb King never consistently proved that he could do any of those things well, and that's what you look for out of your veterans. Consistency. It's the reason why you often see a less talented senior starting over an extremely talented freshman or sophomore.

But, if your would-be senior has never demonstrated that he can stay healthy, stay out of trouble, and play at a high level on a regular basis, well then he's just not much more valuable than a few underclassmen, is he?

The point of this is not to dump on Caleb, though. It's really not. It's simply to point out that I don't believe his presence or lack thereof was ever going to determine the way this season goes for the Dawgs. It's going to come down to Aaron Murray, the performance of the Offensive Line, and the degree to which the defense has progressed.

We'll see shortly what Crowell wants out of his college career

It has become seemingly more certain by the hour that Caleb King has been ruled academically ineligible for the 2011 football season (we'll wait until we see official word from the University). If so, then Isaiah Crowell has a couple of distinct routes he can choose.

First, he can take the approach that there is basically nobody standing in his way of being the starting tailback. With apologies to Carlton Thomas, Ken Malcome, and Brandon Harton, if Crowell's abilities were gauged even remotely accurately, he should be able to win at list a co-starting job if he simply puts in an adequate amount of work.

Or, he can take the approach that this can really be his chance to shine from the get-go. Take a cue from Aaron Murray, Orson Charles, and others that have been singled out as having a phenomenal work ethic, never being satisfied, and always trying to improve.

Without King and Ealey ahead of him, Crowell has a chance to truly be the type of #1 back that many Georgia fans have been clamoring for. A running back who doesn't leave the offensive backfield until the game has been put away.

Is Boise St. still a no-win situation for Dawgs?

When the Broncos visited Athens in 2005, they were considered a very good mid-major conference opponent, and a few prognosticators even went so far as to predict their upset of Georgia that year. After all, they'd gone 11-1 the year before. The result was a 48-13 thrashing by Georgia. Nonetheless, Boise St. went on to go 13-0 in 2006, and have generally continued the pace year in, year out since that fateful day.

Last year, more writers, coaches, etc. were seemingly ready to give them their shot at the BCS title, until the Broncos were derailed by a solid Nevada team late in the year.

But, despite a couple of undefeated seasons and victories over perennial Top-25 teams like Oklahoma and Virginia Tech, there is still the issue of Boise St. having what amounts to a cupcake schedule year in, year out.

Nonetheless, BSU is, at last view, bouncing around between a 3 and 6 point favorite against Georgia on a technically neutral field, but one that should amount to a home field for the Dawgs.

I pose the question: Is this still a "no-win" situation for Georgia? That is, if the Dawgs beat up on the Broncos, will the majority of the college football world simply shrug and say, "that's what they should have done?" Likewise, will it be a total embarrassment for UGA if they lose to the Broncos, regardless of the score?

Or, do you think that the Dawgs will get some props for beating a team that's been in or around the top 10 for the better part of 5 years?

Many weary and wary of talk during Dawgs summer workouts

"Last year, I think we kinda just went through the motions."

"We didn't push ourselves as hard as we could have."

These are but a couple of examples of what we tend to hear from players following a relatively disappointing season. It can get old, and most fans, particularly the more disgruntled ones, don't want to hear it.

The most obvious and instantaneous response to the aforementioned statements is, "Well, why the hell weren't you pushing harder last year?"

True enough, as it seems coaches and players alike would realize by now that champions are not made by just "getting by" in the seemingly endless number of drills and workouts.

At the risk of sounding like an apologist, though, I'll point out a little thing called perspective.

The workouts and regimens put forth by any football program out there is bound to be grueling and a test of the will. While you're in the moment, with coaches and teammates yelling at you to do better, go faster, etc., you could easily feel like your giving every last bit of effort you can. It's only after a loss or a disappointing season that you might look back and say, "You know what? I think I really could have given more."

There's also the problem of a lack of a better response when asked what is different about this year's practices and workouts. Certainly, after a 6-7 season, nobody's going to say, "We're just doing what we've been doing." For, as football legend Albert Einstein once said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.

So, try not to blame the players for saying they're doing things better, working harder, staying more focused, holding each other accountable, having higher attendance at voluntary workouts, or otherwise changing things around. They probably are, and they've got to believe that they are.