Georgia Entered the College Football Playoff With the Worst Rushing Attack in the Field but Still Remained a Contender
Georgia’s place among the elite of college football has been unshakable over the past several seasons. Under head coach Kirby Smart, the Bulldogs have transformed from perennial SEC contenders into a true national powerhouse. They’ve captured multiple College Football Playoff appearances, national championships, and developed a reputation for defensive dominance and physical play. But in 2023, something changed. While Georgia still finished the regular season undefeated and earned a trip to the SEC Championship Game, one critical component of their traditional identity was notably lacking: a dominant rushing attack.
When the final numbers were tallied, Georgia’s rushing offense ranked dead last among all four teams in the College Football Playoff. Statistically speaking, their run game was not just average—it was pedestrian. The Bulldogs averaged just 4.5 yards per carry over the season, a significant drop compared to previous years. They failed to crack the top 50 nationally in rushing yards per game, and in marquee matchups, they leaned heavily on quarterback Carson Beck and the passing attack to move the chains.
This marked a stark departure from the Georgia blueprint that brought them back-to-back national championships in 2021 and 2022. During those years, the Bulldogs thrived on the ground, controlling tempo and wearing down opposing defenses. Whether it was Zamir White, James Cook, Kenny McIntosh, or a stable of five-star offensive linemen, Georgia’s offense revolved around physicality in the trenches and explosive, consistent run production.
But in 2023, the Bulldogs lacked that edge. Injuries, inexperience, and inconsistency plagued the backfield. Senior Daijun Edwards led the team in rushing, but his production—while steady—never reached the game-breaking levels fans had come to expect. Kendall Milton, once considered a breakout candidate, battled injuries that limited his effectiveness for much of the year. Freshman Roderick Robinson flashed in moments but wasn’t yet ready for a feature role in the most critical stretches of the season.
Adding to the problem was a relatively underwhelming performance from Georgia’s offensive line in run blocking. Though still effective in pass protection, the line failed to consistently create lanes for ball carriers. This left Georgia overly reliant on a short passing game to function as an extension of the run game—screen passes, quick slants, and tight end drags became a substitute for traditional ground-and-pound football. It was effective enough to win games in the regular season, but the margin for error shrank considerably as the competition stiffened.
Georgia’s reliance on Carson Beck to carry the offense through the air stood in contrast to their past playoff runs. Beck had a phenomenal year statistically, throwing for over 3,900 yards with 26 touchdowns and just 6 interceptions. His ability to distribute the ball to Brock Bowers, Ladd McConkey, and Dominic Lovett gave Georgia a multidimensional attack. But when it came time to assert physical control of a game—particularly against elite defenses—the Bulldogs couldn’t rely on their rushing offense to take over.
Their rushing woes were perhaps most evident in the SEC Championship Game against Alabama. In a game that was billed as a clash of titans, Georgia managed just 78 rushing yards on 29 attempts—an average of 2.7 yards per carry. The inability to establish the run left them one-dimensional, and Alabama capitalized. The Bulldogs lost 27-24, ending their 29-game winning streak and casting doubts on their offensive balance heading into the Playoff.
When the CFP committee selected the field, Georgia was controversially left out, replaced by Texas, Alabama, Michigan, and Washington. While the Bulldogs had a legitimate case, especially considering their overall resume and only one narrow loss, their lack of a dominant run game may have been a silent factor in the decision-making process. The committee insists it selects the “best four teams,” and while Georgia still boasted one of the most talented rosters in the country, their inability to run the ball with consistency could have signaled a vulnerability that simply didn’t exist with the other teams in the field.
Take Michigan, for example—the Wolverines were built around a powerful offensive line and a pair of star running backs in Blake Corum and Donovan Edwards. Washington, though known more for its prolific passing game, still produced explosive runs from Dillon Johnson and consistently controlled tempo. Alabama and Texas both featured more dynamic backfields than Georgia, capable of gashing defenses at will and closing out games on the ground.
The absence of a strong rushing attack didn’t just limit Georgia tactically—it also impacted their ability to close out games. In contests where they held narrow leads in the fourth quarter, they often needed the defense or passing game to secure victory. That’s a dangerous way to live in college football, particularly in the Playoff where the margin between winning and losing is razor thin.
There’s also the question of identity. Kirby Smart’s Georgia teams have built their brand on physicality, toughness, and controlling the line of scrimmage. The 2023 version, while still defensively stout, didn’t intimidate opponents in the same way offensively. The ground game lacked the ferocity and attitude that had defined the program’s ascent. For all of Carson Beck’s brilliance, Georgia at times looked more like a finesse offense—a label they would have bristled at in previous seasons.
The reasons for Georgia’s rushing decline are multifaceted. Injuries played a major role, to be sure, but the Bulldogs also struggled to develop consistent blocking schemes and failed to find a true No. 1 back. The rotating cast of runners created uncertainty, and the lack of rhythm was evident. Offensive coordinator Mike Bobo’s playcalling came under scrutiny as well, with critics pointing to a lack of commitment to the run in key situations. At times, Georgia seemed content to abandon the ground game altogether when it wasn’t immediately successful.
Still, even with a struggling rushing attack, Georgia remained one of the top teams in the country. Their defense, led by studs like Malaki Starks and Jamon Dumas-Johnson, kept opponents in check. Beck’s poise and decision-making gave them a high floor offensively, and Bowers continued to prove why he’s one of the most dynamic tight ends in college football history. But in the Playoff conversation, especially among evenly matched teams, flaws get magnified. Georgia’s one glaring flaw was their ground game—and it might have cost them their shot at a three-peat.
Looking ahead to 2024, the Bulldogs are already working to fix the issue. The offensive line will return several key pieces, and five-star prospects like Jordan Allen and Nathaniel Frazier are expected to infuse new life into the backfield. Beck’s return for another season also gives Georgia stability at quarterback, which could allow the offense to grow more balanced over time. But the message from 2023 is clear: even the most talented team can’t afford to be one-dimensional.
The College Football Playoff is won in the trenches. It’s won in the fourth quarter when teams need to run the ball, move the chains, and bleed the clock. Georgia couldn’t do that consistently in 2023. While they remained elite in almost every other area, their rushing offense lagged far behind the rest of the field—and in the end, it might have been the difference between getting in and watching from home.
There’s no doubt Georgia will be back in the mix. They have the talent, the coaching, and the pedigree to remain a fixture in the Playoff picture for years to come. But to reclaim their crown, they’ll need to rediscover what made them great in the first place. In 2023, Georgia fielded a Playoff-caliber roster. They had a Playoff-caliber defense. They had a Playoff-caliber quarterback. But they didn’t have a Playoff-caliber run game. And in a sport still defined by physicality, that proved to be their undoing.
