I think you make a good (and big) point about how UGA plays Tennessee. Kirby lines up to give his outside CBs one job: don’t get beat deep. They play inside leverage and force throws deep along the sideline where the CB is expecting them to come. The alignment guards against quick slants and screens, and there is safety/star help inside. If the wide splits remain, the offensive alignment limits crossing routes. The whole scheme is basically a way of saying “if you can withstand the pass rush and complete a ball accurately enough to beat us deep against a physical corner whose only job is to guard against the pass you’re throwing, then hats off to you.” At the same time, the alignment gives the Tennessee WR and QB a deep route read if it’s a pass play, as Heupel generally coaches his guys to go deep against single coverage. Everything on the defensive side is designed to prevent the quick pass inside, because that is where UGA’s conflict defenders are—the guys who have to play run or pass differently.
Football is always tradeoffs. You don’t “solve” it with scheme. Whatever you cover leaves something else uncovered. UGA has had some success in inviting Tennessee to make reads that attack in a predictable and manageable way—where UGA can rely on 5* CBs and the sidelines to make the throws difficult. The plays are there to be made, but the throws are really tough. Missing inside is an easy pick. Missing outside is out of bounds.
I saw a lot less wide play in Tennessee’s first game. Heupel might be trying something new, and he’s one of the best.
