"C'mon. You know this was going to be on my card. This is about how these teams actually create, or fail to create, margin. Let's get this out of the way first: "Georgia is better than Pitt" as a justification to push the line from -13 to -14.5 is just lazy box score fluff with no premise. It ignores matchup, style and why Pitt beat Tech -- and Georgia can't replicate that script."
"Georgia's front is not disruptive enough to break a structure built on a run game led by a mobile quarterback in Haynes King. The Bulldogs are 121st in pressure with only 16 sacks, one of the most important indicators for whether a favorite can create short fields or game-breaking possessions. They simply don't. Flip it: Tech's run defense grades 12th in the FBS, which matters because Georgia's rushing offense lacks explosive punch."
"If you can force UGA into 10-12 play drives, they don't separate, they grind. Grinding doesn't cover over two touchdowns on the road. Add in the rivalry factor, home energy and GT's ability to lean on scripted QB runs, play-action and mid-chunk rushing? The path to a seven- to 10-point Georgia win and Tech to cover is far more realistic. Backing the home side is the sharper side, not the emotional one."
Week 14 features rivalry-fueled overreactions and mismatched spreads. Georgia Tech plus 13.5 is favored as a sharper play because matchup and style negate Georgia's perceived superiority. Georgia generates very little pressure and ranks 121st in sacks, while Tech’s run defense grades near the top, forcing long, grinding drives that limit Georgia’s ability to create separation. Home energy, rivalry factors and Tech’s scripted QB runs and play-action further increase the likelihood Tech covers. Kansas State minus 16.5 targets Colorado’s structural run-defense weakness after surrendering 422 rushing yards to Utah, creating a clear attack plan in Manhattan.
Read at ESPN.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]