SB Nation - Blake Mitchell

What If: South Carolina Had Defeated Tennessee in 2007?

Gamecock Man — Tue, 05 May 2009 17:47:43 -0000

8 months ago: Former Tennnessee football coach Phillip Fulmer speaks to reporters before the spring Orange and White game Saturday, April 18, 2009, in Knoxville, Tenn. Fulmer received the General Robert Neyland Trophy by the Knoxville Quarterback Club. (AP Photo/Wade Payne)

Browse more photos »

The second in a series of What If?, this one on a slightly more serious topic than the last.

As we all remember, 2007 was a season of highs and lows for the Gamecocks, a year when we rose to sixth in the polls only to fall flat late in the season. Many of those lows were close calls in winnable games. The most heartbreaking, due to the rivalry factor, was the Clemson game.The loss to Vanderbilt was also pretty regrettable, and I don't even want to talk about the joke of a performance we turned in in Arkansas game.

However, another game has always stuck out in my head about that season. That would be the Tennessee game. This game was significant both for what it meant for us and for what it meant for the Vols. If we had won, we might have been able to salvage our season after the Vanderbilt loss, and Phil Fulmer might just have left Knoxville a year early.

Before we think about how much this game meant to both teams, it's worth remembering how close this game was. There were a handful of plays at the end that, if they had gone our way, would have made the game for us. Two of these were fumbles, one by us and one by the Vols. Let's look at the first one.

As the ESPN announcers say, this was a close call. One could argue that a whistle should have been blown before the fumble, as Davis had been wrapped up by multiple defenders for a couple of seconds. One could also argue that Davis recovered the fumble himself. However, Tennessee got the call. We were in the red zone on this play and thus lost out on three and probably seven points considering how well we were moving the ball. Even if we had only gotten the FG, the Vols wouldn't have been in position to tie with Daniel Lincoln's FG at the end of regulation.

Tennessee committed the next fumble after we took a three-point lead on a long Succop FG. Deep in our territory, Tennessee TB Arian Foster fumbled the ball forward. The ball went past several of our guys only to be recovered by the Vols. Again, if we had gotten it, game over and we win.

Of course, we all k now what happened next: Lincoln missed the game tying FG, but got another chance because one of his linemen false started. What justice there is in rewarding a team for breaking the rules, I surely don't know, although in the Vols' defense, Lincoln claims that hearing the whistle caused him to miss the kick. Lincoln made the second try, made another in OT, and Succop, proceeded to shank a chip shot to cost us the game.

In thinking about what this game meant to us, one could make the argument that the loss the previous week to Vanderbilt or even the poor play during the second half of a win the week before against UNC were what sparked our slide. I'd be willing to concede to those arguments. Against UNC we looked like we were peaking in the first half, only to come out flat in the second, and we continued that poor play against Vandy the next week. This was more or less inexplicable against these two inferior teams and was obviously a sign of things to come. Indeed, it was a sign of what was to come in the first half against the Vols.

However, during the second half of the game against Tennessee, it looked like we just might be prepared to resurrect our season under the leadership of Blake Mitchell. The offense was clicking and the defense was back to playing to its abilities. We came up just short, though. What did this mean for the season's momentum? It's difficult to objectively gauge things like 'momentum,' but considering the perplexingly horrific play the next week against Arkansas, the complete lay-down against the Gators, and the so-close yet so-far loss to Clemson, it's fair to say that this team was missing something after the deflation against the Vols, and that something wasn't just the depth we lost when our defensive starters began dropping like flies.

The Vols, on the other hand, would go on to finish their season with more close wins, including a 25-24 win over Vandy and a classic 4 OT thriller victory over Kentucky, a spot in the SEC Title Game, and win over Wisconsin in the Outback Bowl. Again, you have the old momentum argument: is it possible that a loss against us would have deflated Tennessee's season to the point that they lose to Vandy and Kentucky, don't make the SEC Title Game, and end up in a shoddy bowl? And if that happened, would Phil have survived to endure 2008?

I guess we'll never know, and I'm certainly not basing this discussion on any demonstrable variables. But it's interesting, if sad for a Gamecocks fan, to think about.

Reviewing the Outback Bowl: Why We Lost and Other Thoughts

Gamecock Man — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:42:06 -0000

First of all, congrats to the Iowa Hawkeyes, who played a hell of a game. While I hated seeing them run it on us, the Hawkeyes' offense was truly a thing of beauty. They perfectly balanced their running and passing game, eating up large chunks on Shonn Greene's legs and throwing in occasional play-action passes to mix things up. The yardage Greene gets after the catch is unreal and Ricky Stanzi certainly knows how to execute a play fake and then hit an open receiver ten yards down field. Although we certainly didn't make them work too hard for it in the first half with all the turnovers and penalties, the Iowa defense also lived up to its great reputation. While it will come as a small consolation to Gamecocks fans, I came away from this game feeling that Iowa is probably good enough to be an 11-1 or 10-2 team but lost a couple of heart breakers to end up with their actual record. Suffice it to say that we didn't get a good match-up in this game--we weren't really a New Year's Day bowl team this year, and the Hawkeyes could have been a BCS bowl team with a little luck.

That said, there are plenty of good reasons to be upset about this game. With a month to prepare, Stephen Garcia looked worse than ever. Amazingly, his accuracy dipped far below Chris Smelley levels. Smelley and Garcia now share the dubious honor of managing to throw a number of passes over Jared Cook's reach, quite a feat considering that Cook is 6'5 and has really long arms. It's hard to know what to make of Garcia's troubles. In earlier games, he appeared to be a very accurate passer that just needed to learn how to read a defense better. Today, though, he looked just as mistake-prone as Smelley and Blake Mitchell, a scary thought if Garcia is this team's best hope for the future. Garcia had obviously been working on a few aspects of his game. His pocket presence was improved; he seemed to have a better idea about when to tuck it and run and when to check down his receivers. There's good reason to believe that he'll be much better with after getting a Spring training under his belt. His performance today, though, makes me wonder if his ceiling is truly as high as we think it is or if he's going to be just as inconsistent as Chris and Blake.

As for Chris, I'll give him credit for coming in and playing pretty well. If anything, his performance reminded me that he's capable of playing at a high level from time to time, even if it's usually in garbage time when he comes off the bench. It should also be clear to the crowd that has blindly championed Garcia that Spurrier's choice between Garcia and Smelley has not been as clear cut as they would like to think; despite Garcia's promise, he's just not obviously better than Chris. Period. Needless to say, Smelley's chances of leading this team did not die with his horrible game against Clemson. The QB battle between these two will continue into Spring training. I hope that Garcia takes the position, as that would mean that he markedly improves his game. We know what we're getting with Chris, and that's a sometimes decent but oftentimes horrible QB. While I'd love to see Chris improve, the fact is that he's a red-shirt sophomore and in most cases QBs with as much experience as he has don't magically get better overnight.

While it would be easy to lay all of the blame on Garcia, other players deserve their share as well. Captain Munnerlyn's performance, which was littered with poor decisions in coverage and a couple of cheap penalties, was a joke. Why NFL scouts think this guy will be a first-day pick after the season he's had is beyond me.
Jared Cook also turned in a below par performance. Cook did catch a touchdown pass and in his defense we probably didn't go to him enough, but he also dropped a couple of passes. I came away from this game thinking that Munnerlyn and Cook are set on leaving for the NFL and didn't care very much about helping the Gamecocks win this game. If this is true, it's sad that these two great athletes don't have more pride in their team's performance.

Cook and Munnerlyn would do well to take a look at how Eric Norwood and Kenny McKinley, two guys that are also headed to the NFL (probably, in Norwood's case), performed. McKinley left it all out on the field and reminded us one last time that he's a great player that loves the Gamecocks. Norwood, despite the fact that there's a pretty good chance that he will opt out of his senior season and head for the pros, also put forth a lot of effort. Whatever decision Norwood makes, I'll always remember his time here fondly. He seems like a stand-up guy and is certainly a great player.

As for my thoughts on Spurrier and the direction of this program, I think I'm going to sleep on this game for a few days before making any rash comments. My general impression is that I would have liked to see Garcia distance himself a bit from Smelley. However, I'll also acknowledge that this was a bowl game against a great team, so we should probably take the outcome with a grain of salt. Spurrier and Garcia's true chance to prove themselves will have to wait until next year.

MIDSEASON REPORT: South Carolina looks for eight

cocknfire — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:30:38 -0000

If I could take back one thing I've written at Garnet and Black Attack since the South Carolina season began, it would be this.

There's no excuse for what we saw tonight. There just isn't. Don't even start this "Vanderbilt is a good team" crap. Don't even start making excuses. Don't even begin to try to explain this away.

We lost. To Vanderbilt. Deal with it.

In fairness, this was only the second game of the season, and there was no way to tell that Vanderbilt would actually have its breakthrough year. But as the Commodores' fortunes have gone up, the loss has looked not quite so stinging. And South Carolina's season has seemed slightly more hopeful.

Only slightly, though. Your humble correspondent is one of those realistic South
Carolina fans, who from the beginning did not see this as the Gamecocks' breakthrough season. And it will not. To have any hope at the SEC East title, South Carolina needs Vanderbilt to lose three conference games and Georgia to lose two more -- as South Carolina wins out. Vanderbilt might lose three conference games. The other two conditions each seem unlikely, to say the least. It's almost impossible to see both happening.

So what will it take for South Carolina to salvage this season? It depends on what you mean by "salvage." Coming into the season, most Gamecock fans wanted to see at least eight games to mark progress from last year's 6-6 disaster. Make no mistake, then, about the importance of the win against Ole Miss: That might have saved South Carolina's season. Now, eight wins are still possible. South Carolina is likely to be favored vs. Arkansas and possibly vs. Tennessee, both at home. That means they need two more wins among: at Kentucky, vs. LSU, at Florida, at Clemson. So it's possible, but there's no margin for error.

But there are good signs for the Gamecocks. Chris Smelley appears to finally be vanquishing his inner Blake Mitchell. Kenny McKinley is back on the field. Ellis Johnson has ably guided the Gamecocks' defense.

No pressure, Kenny. Just save the season.

The run game, though, must get better -- on both sides of the ball. In fairness to South Carolina's defense, they've some of the best rushing attacks in the NCAA, including Vanderbilt (36th nationally) and Wofford (2nd in the FCS); of their opponents, only N.C. State's rushing offense falls outside the top 50. And if you give up only 128 ypg through the air, well, you can live with the opponent having moderate success on the ground.

There is no reason, though, to be fair to the South Carolina offense. It is difficult to win in the SEC rushing for less than 120 ypg. If the running game continues to be sluggish, South Carolina will likely plod across the finish line once again.

In that case, 6-6 looks about right. For the sake of argument, we'll say the ground game improves. Removing homerism, it looks like 7-5 for the Gamecocks. Progress, but not enough.