UGA won the SEC that year as well. What you had was one of Boise's worst teams vs UGA's SEC Championship team.
UGA won the SEC that year as well. What you had was one of Boise's worst teams vs UGA's SEC Championship team.
BA Barakus, you know I luv ya like a brotha, brotha, and I have sooooo much respect for your knowledge, capping abilities, and love of the game. But don't take it personally when someone disagrees with your side of the game. This is only one game in a very long season.
BA Barakus, you know I luv ya like a brotha, brotha, and I have sooooo much respect for your knowledge, capping abilities, and love of the game. But don't take it personally when someone disagrees with your side of the game. This is only one game in a very long season.
That is absolutely false. I had Georgia -7 in that game.
Boise was coming off of back-to-back 12-1 (only loss was to Oregon State) and 13-1 (only loss was to Louisville) seasons, and they returned much of their team. (QB Zabransky, their top receiver Schoumen, also WRs Carpenter & Naanee). They also had a RB named Ian Johnson. Ever hear of him? I heard he was pretty good.
There is one huge difference between that game and this one however. That game was played in the heat & humidity of Athens, and the Boise players were very much affected by it. This game will be played in a climate-controlled dome. Big advantage Boise.
What is identical, however, is the propoganda channels of the mainstream media hyping Boise. They were being hyped in that game almost as much as they're being hyped now. In fact that was really when the Boise hype machine was just starting to get cranked up.
Long discussions took place on Covers about the game. There weren't nearly as many cappers inflicted with Blue Fever back then, but there were still quite a few who thought Boise would win the game.
I made the same argument as I do now: Georgia would win because of their vastly superior talent. It was so then, and it is so now. Nothing really has changed except the Boise coach, and that there are many more Boise worshippers on Covers today than there were back then.
Yes it is true they lost 4 games that season, but they lost to 4 very good teams. Besides Georgia they lost to Oregon State, a very strong Fresno team, and a Boston College team with Matt Ryan under center. So their 4 losses had much more to do with schedule than anything else. It would really be no different today. If Boise had to play 4 or 5 tough games per year, they'd lose 2 or 3 of them.
To Boise's credit, the following year they won both of their tough games (Oregon State & Oklahoma) en route to their magical undefeated season.
To say that Boise had some terrible team that year sounds good, but is utterly ridiculous and completely false.
That is absolutely false. I had Georgia -7 in that game.
Boise was coming off of back-to-back 12-1 (only loss was to Oregon State) and 13-1 (only loss was to Louisville) seasons, and they returned much of their team. (QB Zabransky, their top receiver Schoumen, also WRs Carpenter & Naanee). They also had a RB named Ian Johnson. Ever hear of him? I heard he was pretty good.
There is one huge difference between that game and this one however. That game was played in the heat & humidity of Athens, and the Boise players were very much affected by it. This game will be played in a climate-controlled dome. Big advantage Boise.
What is identical, however, is the propoganda channels of the mainstream media hyping Boise. They were being hyped in that game almost as much as they're being hyped now. In fact that was really when the Boise hype machine was just starting to get cranked up.
Long discussions took place on Covers about the game. There weren't nearly as many cappers inflicted with Blue Fever back then, but there were still quite a few who thought Boise would win the game.
I made the same argument as I do now: Georgia would win because of their vastly superior talent. It was so then, and it is so now. Nothing really has changed except the Boise coach, and that there are many more Boise worshippers on Covers today than there were back then.
Yes it is true they lost 4 games that season, but they lost to 4 very good teams. Besides Georgia they lost to Oregon State, a very strong Fresno team, and a Boston College team with Matt Ryan under center. So their 4 losses had much more to do with schedule than anything else. It would really be no different today. If Boise had to play 4 or 5 tough games per year, they'd lose 2 or 3 of them.
To Boise's credit, the following year they won both of their tough games (Oregon State & Oklahoma) en route to their magical undefeated season.
To say that Boise had some terrible team that year sounds good, but is utterly ridiculous and completely false.
The same thing will happen in this game as what usually happens when a SEC team plays oc:
Georgia's defensive front seven is going to dominate Boise at the los. They are to big and athletic for that o-line to handle. Ball game.
The same thing will happen in this game as what usually happens when a SEC team plays oc:
Georgia's defensive front seven is going to dominate Boise at the los. They are to big and athletic for that o-line to handle. Ball game.
UGA homer here......so let me state that first.
UGA wanted this game. Set the tone early.
UGA wins by 10. Just too big and fast for Boise.
UGA homer here......so let me state that first.
UGA wanted this game. Set the tone early.
UGA wins by 10. Just too big and fast for Boise.
UGA homer here......so let me state that first.
UGA wanted this game. Set the tone early.
UGA wins by 10. Just too big and fast for Boise.
I agree completely.
UGA homer here......so let me state that first.
UGA wanted this game. Set the tone early.
UGA wins by 10. Just too big and fast for Boise.
I agree completely.
I agree completely.
Wasn't VT and Oregon and Oregon and Oklahoma also suppose to be too big and fast for them?
Face it, UGA is nothing special and because the East is dog poo this year, UGA should still take the division at 5-3..
I agree completely.
Wasn't VT and Oregon and Oregon and Oklahoma also suppose to be too big and fast for them?
Face it, UGA is nothing special and because the East is dog poo this year, UGA should still take the division at 5-3..
UGA homer here......so let me state that first.
UGA wanted this game. Set the tone early.
UGA wins by 10. Just too big and fast for Boise.
yep..sounds alot like VIRGINIA TECH last year....hmmmmmmm
UGA homer here......so let me state that first.
UGA wanted this game. Set the tone early.
UGA wins by 10. Just too big and fast for Boise.
yep..sounds alot like VIRGINIA TECH last year....hmmmmmmm
Just posting my thoughts. You put this UGA team on that dome turf and u will c what happens. D has to get better which is what killed UGA late in games last year. No run stopper. Have 2 this year along the dl.
Boise is a solid team.....as they were in 05. They got ambushed. UGA took this game to make a statement. And I think they will.
With regard to the frosh RB, Crowell, hell he would've started last year if he was on campus.
Good luck to the Broncos backers. Should b a good game. Just think UGA has more team speed and size.
Just posting my thoughts. You put this UGA team on that dome turf and u will c what happens. D has to get better which is what killed UGA late in games last year. No run stopper. Have 2 this year along the dl.
Boise is a solid team.....as they were in 05. They got ambushed. UGA took this game to make a statement. And I think they will.
With regard to the frosh RB, Crowell, hell he would've started last year if he was on campus.
Good luck to the Broncos backers. Should b a good game. Just think UGA has more team speed and size.
Yes I think they will be over in week one.
They lost to Nevada costing them a BCS game last year.
If you watched the VT game then you know that they spotted them 17 pts and VT still should have won if it wasn't for the cheating refs helping Boise in the last minute.
Yes I think they will be over in week one.
They lost to Nevada costing them a BCS game last year.
If you watched the VT game then you know that they spotted them 17 pts and VT still should have won if it wasn't for the cheating refs helping Boise in the last minute.
That is absolutely false. I had Georgia -7 in that game.
Boise was coming off of back-to-back 12-1 (only loss was to Oregon State) and 13-1 (only loss was to Louisville) seasons, and they returned much of their team. (QB Zabransky, their top receiver Schoumen, also WRs Carpenter & Naanee). They also had a RB named Ian Johnson. Ever hear of him? I heard he was pretty good.
There is one huge difference between that game and this one however. That game was played in the heat & humidity of Athens, and the Boise players were very much affected by it. This game will be played in a climate-controlled dome. Big advantage Boise.
What is identical, however, is the propoganda channels of the mainstream media hyping Boise. They were being hyped in that game almost as much as they're being hyped now. In fact that was really when the Boise hype machine was just starting to get cranked up.
Long discussions took place on Covers about the game. There weren't nearly as many cappers inflicted with Blue Fever back then, but there were still quite a few who thought Boise would win the game.
I made the same argument as I do now: Georgia would win because of their vastly superior talent. It was so then, and it is so now. Nothing really has changed except the Boise coach, and that there are many more Boise worshippers on Covers today than there were back then.
Yes it is true they lost 4 games that season, but they lost to 4 very good teams. Besides Georgia they lost to Oregon State, a very strong Fresno team, and a Boston College team with Matt Ryan under center. So their 4 losses had much more to do with schedule than anything else. It would really be no different today. If Boise had to play 4 or 5 tough games per year, they'd lose 2 or 3 of them.
To Boise's credit, the following year they won both of their tough games (Oregon State & Oklahoma) en route to their magical undefeated season.
To say that Boise had some terrible team that year sounds good, but is utterly ridiculous and completely false.
That is absolutely false. I had Georgia -7 in that game.
Boise was coming off of back-to-back 12-1 (only loss was to Oregon State) and 13-1 (only loss was to Louisville) seasons, and they returned much of their team. (QB Zabransky, their top receiver Schoumen, also WRs Carpenter & Naanee). They also had a RB named Ian Johnson. Ever hear of him? I heard he was pretty good.
There is one huge difference between that game and this one however. That game was played in the heat & humidity of Athens, and the Boise players were very much affected by it. This game will be played in a climate-controlled dome. Big advantage Boise.
What is identical, however, is the propoganda channels of the mainstream media hyping Boise. They were being hyped in that game almost as much as they're being hyped now. In fact that was really when the Boise hype machine was just starting to get cranked up.
Long discussions took place on Covers about the game. There weren't nearly as many cappers inflicted with Blue Fever back then, but there were still quite a few who thought Boise would win the game.
I made the same argument as I do now: Georgia would win because of their vastly superior talent. It was so then, and it is so now. Nothing really has changed except the Boise coach, and that there are many more Boise worshippers on Covers today than there were back then.
Yes it is true they lost 4 games that season, but they lost to 4 very good teams. Besides Georgia they lost to Oregon State, a very strong Fresno team, and a Boston College team with Matt Ryan under center. So their 4 losses had much more to do with schedule than anything else. It would really be no different today. If Boise had to play 4 or 5 tough games per year, they'd lose 2 or 3 of them.
To Boise's credit, the following year they won both of their tough games (Oregon State & Oklahoma) en route to their magical undefeated season.
To say that Boise had some terrible team that year sounds good, but is utterly ridiculous and completely false.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.