SEC Wrap Up – Week 2

Win, some lose some. I called the Dawgs in a 20-point victory (33-13), but the actual score was 48-28. Better offense than I expected, but the defense was shaky against the option. So the 20-point margin of victory was spot on, but the results were slightly unexpected. Danny Ware made a believer out of me (135 yards on 18 rushing attempts, good for 3 TDs), and hopefully will continue to improve, providing a much needed balance to David Greene’s passing attack.

Speaking of shaky predictions, and trouble against the run, I guess I was pretty dumb to call Vandy over South Carolina because the roosters pulled off an easy 31-6 victory. Georgia better figure out how to stop the run this week, or next weekend’s game at South Carolina is going to be not so fun.

I correctly called out Memphis over Ole Miss (20-13) in a big SEC ouch. Hopefully Kentucky will prove me wrong today, but I am also expecting them to fall. I still expect Tennessee to easily handle UNLV despite the Vols QB questions.

As expected, Alabama started off slow against Utah State (17-10 halftime lead), but managed to roll away in the second half to a 48-17 victory. I was way off base about LSU over Oregon State, who I incorrectly labeled the Ducks instead of Beavers. At any rate, LSU won in overtime, but only because the Beavers missed three extra points. How freaking hard can it be to find someone to hit an extra point? Before it is all said and done, an impressive performance by the Beavers will be all but forgotten by the pollsters.

Mississippi State won big over Tulane (28-7), Arkansas easily took care of New Mexico State (63-13), and Auburn blanked Louisiana-Monroe 31-0, which has to be a moral victory for the Indians after last year’s 73-3 debacle.

So far I am off to a 7-1 start. Not too shabby.

[Late edit Sep. 11 – I was going to make this a part I and part II article since TN and KY were scheduled for Sunday. Oh well, ran out of time for a second article, but I did correctly pick both games so that makes me a dandy 9-1 on the year.]


Leave a Reply