Georgia Football: The "Buzz" on Bulldog Backs Crowell, Samuel, Et Al.

A-h-h-h-h-h. The message boards. You know, the fan forums—the "buzz," the "rant," the "vent," the "post," the "view", etc.—the places where fans and anti-fans alike go online to voice their opinions about the teams that they love or to spew venom about ones that they despise. On them, you find all types, however, there are a few common persona that are omnipresent—the positive Pauls, the negative Neils, the skeptical Skips, the devil's advocate Dans and the objective Oscars.  

In past eras, if you weren't actively engaged in watching and/or listening to a sporting event, being a fan was more or less a sedentary, vicarious, subconscious, part-time and passive process. But today, love 'em or hate 'em, message boards, comment boards and other such cyber confabs, such as this one, provide fans with a participatory outlet for expressing their enthusiasm and devotion that is at their disposal (and fingertips) literally 24/7/365.

Case in point? Someone, somewhere is reading and commenting to a Bleacher Report article, calling the writer (perhaps, me) a moron, when they are supposed to be working. Isn't that awesome? It's one of the things that makes being a sports fan in America today eminently better than times past.

I admit that occasionally I visit a few of the message boards that are devoted to the teams of my interest. Primarily, I scan through them for two reasons: 1) To keep my finger on the pulse of the people—you know, to see what's on the minds and in the hearts of the "So-and-So Nation," and 2) To get a sense of whether or not I am on an island with my own observations—"Is it just me or are others seeing and sensing what I am?"

Well, I ventured into the world of cyber-fandom this morning, and Voila!, I'm writing this article. After Saturday's close shave with the Vanderbilt Commodores, the Georgia running game is on the minds of cyber-Dawgs. To be kind, it was a tepid rushing night. And to be completely aboveboard, it really has been no better than mediocre throughout the year.

Georgia currently ranks 51st (the middle third) among FBS schools in rushing and seventh in the 12 team SEC. The Bulldogs have rushed for 1,137 yards on 298 carries and average 3.88 yards per carry.

To put their mediocrity into perspective, as a team, the Dawgs have rushed for only 198 more yards than the nation's third-leading rusher (5.8 yards/carry) and only 225 more yards than its fourth-leading rusher, Alabama's Trent Richardson (6.91 yards/carry), who has 161 fewer carries than Georgia's rushes as a team.

Bulldog fans were buzzing about two themes related to Bulldog rushers that caught my attention, both topics meshed with, or not, some of my own thoughts and observations over the last couple of games. 

First, on Isaiah Crowell, Georgia's 5-star tailback that everyone has been buzzing about for well over a year tracing back to his senior prep season and his subsequent recruitment, signing, arrival and taking the field at Georgia. The question being posed on the forums was a simple one. What's up with Crowell?

First things first. A disclaimer: These are o-b-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-o-n-s not c-o-n-d-e-m-n-at-i-o-n-s. So let's dive in to what people were talking about? That Isaiah Crowell did not start the game against Vanderbilt did not escape Georgia fans for more than a millisecond after the Bulldog offense took the field for the first time Saturday. Fans were startled, puzzled and alarmed until he finally made his first appearance early in the second half.

When quizzed about the obvious benching by FSN sideline reporter, Kristina Akra, at the half, Mark Richt tersely replied that Crowell had been held out, "Because I love him." This is coach-speak for Crowell's being in the doghouse for some sort of disciplinary issue. Cyber-fans were asking, "What did he do?" and "Anybody in the know got the scoop?"

While inquiring minds want to know the skinny on the benching, including this one, the fact is that it is an internal matter. It is between the athlete and the coaches. In reality, we need to file one this under "nunya"—you know, as in none of our business. As for the disciplinary scrape, however, most likely it was no big deal, a hiccup, an aberration. But being honest, that it occurred at all registers as anywhere from irritating to concerning.

Some will say, "Boys will be boys," while others rationalize, "Well, they are just college students." But I will counter by suggesting that the majority of college athletes have exactly zero incidences during their careers that result in their being shown the pines.

The other burning question was this: "Why did he play so little and so ineffectively (polite language—not necessarily a staple on the boards)?" Many suggested that, thus far, he seems not to play as well as the games progress. Others noted that, after impressing since a slow start against Boise State, Crowell has, in fact, not played all that well in the last couple of games. These observations caught my attention because they mirrored my own.

The popular attempts to explain or to rationalize these perceptions of the tailback's performance (or truths, as the case may be) were that a) Crowell was injured, b) that he is a freshman, c) that his stamina is poor and d) that he is small for a big-time back.

Assuming that he indeed is not playing well as the games wear on and that he has not been as productive against Tennessee and Vanderbilt, let's address and assess each of these theories.

First, he was injured. Against Tennessee, it did appear that he was injured during the game and that it nagged him throughout. It is possible that the effects of the injury lingered over into Saturday, and it continued to affect his play. The analysis this explanation is simple. If he was too injured to play, then he should have been held out. If not, however, then simply put, he is not the first player to ever suit up and play hurt. In coaching circles, there is an axiom: "You suck it up and play when you're hurt; you sit if you're injured." So, which was it? As I said, inquiring minds want to know.

Secondly, he is a freshman. This is true. That he is. But allow me drop another name. Herschel Walker. This is a name that some Georgia fans have chanted as Crowell took the field in Sanford Stadium. I will leave that point sitting just where it is. Crowell is currently the 50th-ranked rusher among FBS backs. That there are only five freshman in the top 50 likely supports the idea that it is more difficult for freshman backs to prosper in college football than it is for stronger, more experienced upperclassmen. However, it should be noted the other four are ranked higher, as high, in fact, as No. 18.

Thirdly, his stamina is poor. The retort? Why? Is it because he is a freshman? Your point? Is it because he is not used to having so many carries per game. Perhaps. Is it because of the hits he is taking compared to what he is accustomed to? Best explanation I've heard. But stamina? October? Maybe after the bye week, we will get a better gage if fatigue has been a contributing factor. In his defense, players actualize their potential when they are ready, in their own time. On the other hand, however, "Just gimme the rock, coach."

Lastly, he is too small to withstand the wear and tear? Don't know about this one? The nation's top three rushers are LaMichael James of Oregon, Ronnie Hillman of San Diego State and Ray Graham of Pitt. They are all just about identical in physical stature: 5' 9" to 5'10", 190 to195 pounds. The University of Georgia's athletic website lists Crowell as 5' 11", 215. Enough said.

So what is the point? Well, the point is that I have observed some of the same things that the cyber-venters have. Some of it is in body langauge, but again, that could be the result of injury. I don't want to see it, but I do, and it has given me pause for concern at this early stage. To be succinct, I see Crowell is uber-talented. Of that, there is no question.

Putting aside all the other explanations for his hypothetical drop-off in production in second halves and over the last couple of games, I will postulate one more. What if it's his motor? Is he a high-energy guy? A fighter when the going gets tough? That's the question that has popped up in my mind as I have watched him. And is a high rpm, high horsepower motor something that you can teach or coach in someone? All Dawgs fans will hope that his engine is just fine and maybe he's just having a little midseason low biorhythm.

Or perhaps, giving the young back the benefit of the doubt, maybe he was truly injured, wanted to give it a go, but didn't need to? After only seven games, it seems the fairest and most plausible explanation.

Or maybe he just has a aversion to the state of Tennessee? He wouldn't be the first. Moving on.

The cyber-ranters, amidst their angst over Crowell's performance, were largely slamming Richard Samuel IV, ostensibly, along with Carlton Thomas, our only other viable alternative at tailback if Crowell is benched, injured, tired or what have you. They were hard on him, very hard.

Richard Samuel, despite their knocks, played well on Saturday. Though gaining only 53 yards on 15 carries, he ran hard and made some very nice cuts, cuts that Richard Samuel 1.0 and 2.0 would have never made. He is a physical specimen, bigger than Crowell, fast and plays with a high motor—with passion. He may not be the most talented ball carrier, but what he is for certain is what the Dawg faithful call a "DGD", a damn good Dawg."

He has been shuffled more than a deck of cards while at Georgia, accepted the role assigned to him with class and seems to play with intensity. Saturday, he looked like he wanted to play, and sometimes, that ain't half bad. Perhaps, in addition to tailback and linebacker, he can serve as role model, as well.

Carlton Thomas? Smallish, more of a scat back than tailback, but a high-energy guy who has run the ball hard and well at times. Ken Malcome? Haven't seen, don't know where he is, what he's got? Maybe injured, but not in the rotation so no matter. Brandon Harton, very small too, but ran hard in the G-Day game and on a couple of carries against Coastal Carolina. 

Well, that's the buzz on the RBs in fan forum-land this Monday. Keeping in mind that running backs do not run in isolation, that they rely heavily upon the offensive line for their success (I am reminded, reading someone say in defense of Ealey and King last year that, "Nobody could run the ball behind those turnstiles."), Bulldogs fans are accustomed to watching outstanding tailbacks and remain optimistic that Isaiah Crowell and the rest of the ground crew will continue to improve.

They are hopeful that in the weeks ahead, an improved rushing attack will supplement Georgia's slightly more effective passing attack to provide Georgia with a balanced and explosive offense capable of beating Florida and Auburn and helping to win the SEC East title.

In the meantime, hopefully, those ball-toters will get some rest, heal up and get ready to run those Gators. Let the Big Dawg run.