.... about Saturday.

I read where Mickey Andrews said the main problems were effort and intensity.  I find this explanation to be lacking and, frankly, a little scary.

The quarterback was not running free on the zone read because of effort and intensity. It's because our scheme was lacking and our discipline was pathetic.

Did Ga. Tech RB run straight off guard, untouched, because of effort and intensity?

Here's my real big, fat fear: We are exactly in the same place on defense right now as we were on offense 3 or 4 years ago. But everybody knows MA won't go until Bowden goes and I'm not so sure we're as close to that as some people think/wish.

Bowden's hero was Bear Bryant and when he was done with football, he was done with life -- literally. I'm sure Bowden fears the same thing -- I would.

For the first time with our offense, I see the light at the end of the tunnel.

1) We have a QB who gets it. He has much improvemient ahead, but he gets it.

2) We have skill players galore

3) We have an O-line that is tough. They're small, but they'll grow -- not just through Tricket's Marine tactics, but remember, 20 year olds are simply bigger than 18 year olds. They will grow.

4) Most important, we have a scheme that makes sense. We are at least WITH the times and maybe even a little ahead of the times in terms of getting the ball to players in space, etc.

On defense, though, we trail ... badly. Our blitz scheme seems archaic (when's the last time we successfully brought a corner on a blitz?)  We obviously have a glaring weakness at DT. Our CB's are vulnerable to the deep ball (like they have been under MA since the forward pass was invented).

And, most importantly ANY GIMMICK -- option, zone read, spread passing game, emphasis on the TE,  -- ANYTHING that is something other than straight I formation, pro-style offense, we struggle to stop.

Finally, there is the product of the disjointed bureaucracy otherwise known as our football  coaching org. chart.

Who is the boss? You might scoff at that and say: Of course, it's Bowden. He's the "CEO"

Look, I'm a poor man's CEO and I sure as hell decide who will be "starting" as my department heads every week. I don't say-- "go ask my No. 2 guy, he'll tell you who is going to lead that department."

It is a DYSFUNCTIONAL setup. Organizational structures exist for a reason. Trickett of all people would understand this, coming from the military. People need a BOSS.They need a chain of command. They need to know who is going to chew their ass when they screw up. They need to know who is invested in their success.

There is a political philosophy known as the "tragedy of the commons." Basically it says: If one person owns something, it is much more likely to be taken care of than if many people own something."

This makes sense if you think about litter.  Where are you more likely to see litter, in somebody's front yard or in a culvert located on a public right of way? The culvert, of course, because every in town owns 1/100,000th of it.

Well, the same is true in an organization, the more you diffuse and disperse responsibility, the less people actually FEEL that responsibility.

In the news business, I always laugh when editors boast: We have 7 people edit each story.

Well, you know what the first editor says? 'I don't have to pay much attention to this, there are 6 more sets of eyes coming behind me." And the 7th edtior says: "This must be right, 6 other people have already read it!"

These players need ONE leader and these coaches need ONE leader so that responsibility is focused and sharp.

The final thing I read is about Jimbo and Ponder saying that we let down after hearing that Wake had lost.

ONE, STRONG, TRUE leader would never allow that to happen.