TheCatsDomain.Com Message Boards: Coaches Responsibility

This is topic Coaches Responsibility in forum UK / NCAA Football at TheCatsDomain.Com Message Boards.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.thecatsdomain.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004985

Posted by catlogic15 (Member # 1227) on 11-25-2007, 11:33 AM:

The second half season slide falls strictly on the coaching staff I feel. We were always having to come from behind as Joker couldn't figure anything out until the second half. Brown's defense couldn't stop a turtle going uphill half the time. The first touchdown by Tenn.and the last one-play TD from the forty were unbelievable gaffs. Against Ms.St., they were just not ready to play. The coaching staff wants the players to play an entire game, but the staff itself only seemed to show up for half of each game. If I were Tamme and the other seniors I'd tell the coaches to forget practicing another month, just give us a complete game plan in whatever minor bowl we'll be attending.

Posted by ALA_KAT2 (Member # 1559) on 11-25-2007, 12:31 PM:

I can't argue with your statement. As far as the offense, I feel that the coaches tried to always establish the run instead of establishing the pass. I know the team needs both to be successful, but when your strength is in passing, why settle for runs up the middle that do nothing but put you in third and long situations. Every time we went to the hurry-up offense and quick throws, we were pretty successful as evidenced last night against Tennessee.

And I would have liked to have seen the coaches use the players available to the best of their ability and the best way to help the team. For example, Little is good at receiving and then running, whereas Locke is the better runner in tough yardage situations. Too many times I've watched Little gain two yards and go down on the first hit (I realize he is not 100%).

Having said all that, I'm proud of the way this team battled to come back in many of the games either to win or make it competitive. If the coaches had done a better job of getting them ready and using the players in ways that maximize their talent, we might have won a couple more games.

Posted by prophet (Member # 2089) on 11-25-2007, 12:54 PM:

The answer to this post and others: more and better players. Simple as that.

Posted by bayer (Member # 462) on 11-25-2007, 04:29 PM:

To win consistently in the SEC you have to establish the run and then pass. Hal Mumme proved you cannot win consistently with establishing the pass first. To establish the run first, you have to control the line of scrimmage. We simply could not do that against the better teams, except for our game against LSU.

I don't know how many of you noticed it but late in the game or during the overtime yesterday the TV announcers made a point about John Chavis, the UT Defensive Coordinator, liking to rotate his defensive line so they always have fresh legs in the game. In order to compete against that type of deep talent, you have to have deep talent on the O-Line. We simply do not have deep talent at this time.

I still believe, given the time and the resources this coaching staff can get that deep talent. But we as fans have to have the patience to give them that time. You are not going to take a program which has been down for 20-25 years, just coming off probation and being significantly down in scholarships and have them beat UT, UGA, UF, LSU, Ark, USC, MSU, and VU all in one season. We beat half of them this year. Next year maybe 5 or 6, then maybe 7.

We will never be able to establish the run first until we get more and better players at all positions.

Posted by ALA_KAT2 (Member # 1559) on 11-25-2007, 06:43 PM:

bayer, that's a good post and you are correct in that to be totally successful, you have to be able to run it in the league.

However, do not sacrifice the entire offense just to prove that you can (run it). I hate to see them run the ball into the line 3 straight times and then punt. At times, either Joker is calling the wrong play or Woodson is mis-reading the defense, but we have way too many runs for either short or negative yardage. Our ends do not block well enough for us to run outside very much and other teams are stacking it up inside.

We've got to improve the depth and quality of our offensive and defensive lines in order to compete and recruit faster and stronger D-Backs.

Posted by catmandoo (Member # 1284) on 11-25-2007, 07:10 PM:

Bayer, you hit the nail on the head. I don't see how we can match what Woodson has done the last couple of years. You are right we are going to have to get better in other areas becuse no matter who are quarterback is next year he isn't going to be a Woodson..

Posted by prophet (Member # 2089) on 11-25-2007, 08:12 PM:

Good, logical, relatively unemotional and unbiased comments. How unusual for a website! But, all in all, fairly typical of TCD and the reason it's my favorite. Couple of thoughts and questions: I disagree somewhat with cmd regarding Woodson; UK may not have a better QB but they can have a different type of QB. Woodson for all his talent was basically one dimensional (all too typified by the last play of UT game (Pat White, Chase Daniels, Darren Dixon -- before injury, Tim Tebow, et al would have run in for EP). Such QB's are in vogue. I know little about Pulley but he seems more in the mould, if not him, perhaps Lentz. ALA_KAT2 makes an excellent point regarding UK's receiver blocking: Burton, Johnson, even Tamme weren't very effective blocking downfield. He also makes a good observation on D-backs; IMO only Lindley is of SEC caliber. And, it goes without saying, that depth and speed are still a UK deficiency. Much progress has been made, as much or more remains.

[ 11-25-2007, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: prophet ]

Posted by Brandon (Member # 108) on 11-26-2007, 07:40 AM:

You have to be able to run the ball, true enough, but you also have to have a passing attack that is actually worth something for it to be effective.

Look at Arkansas, for example. They are a run oriented team and should be with the talent they have at RB. But their passing attack is marginal at best. They don't have a very good passing attack for other teams to be concerned with a great deal so other teams play really just token pass defense against Arkansas.

I agree that teams in the SEC need to be able to run the ball to be successful. I just think that a team needs to have an established passing game in order to set up the run. If a team can't pass the ball, the defense is going to put 8 or 9 guys in the box to stop the run and it's hard to run past 9 defensive players in the same area that the ball carrier is in.

Establishing the run is essential, no question about that. I just think the a team has to be able to pass in order to be able to run.

Posted by Tiptree (Member # 844) on 11-26-2007, 08:58 AM:

The pass/run dichotomy is well established, and I lean towards Brandon's observation that establishing an effective one dimensional passing game is easier than establishing an effective one dimensional running game. But the interplay between the pass and run is the key to an effective offense. BOTH need to be effective, and each can only be maximally effective when the other is clicking.

But, what about defense? The knock on Hal Mumme's teams focused on the lack of a running game; I would submit that his short passing attack WAS a running game -- just with a forward lateral instead of a handoff. [Smile]

No, I didn't mind Mumme's high-octane offense. My issue with Mumme was his atrocious disregard for playing defense. Had he had a defense on par with his offense, who knows how far UK might have gone.

Ditto for this year's team. If UK could have rotated players on the D-line like Tennessee, don't you think we could have had better results? We seem to be OK on linebackers, but tackles, corners, and ends seemed to be in short supply. More talented players that can play even with the starters is essential for success in the SEC.

Ditto for our offensive line. I was amazed at how effective they were early in the season, especially given how undersized they were. I mean, we had two converted tight ends playing interior line positions! Across the board, we were 20-50 pounds light, which eventually catches up with you. More talented linemen with adequate size would have REALLY helped this offense, both in the running game and the passing game.

So, at the bottom line, Kentucky still needs to stockpile more talented, and faster, players. The 15 or so redshirts that Brook held back this year bodes well for the future, but that is but a start. Recruiting is the key. I think that this staff is doing a yeoman's job on this front, but we still come in in the bottom third of the SEC each and every year in class ranking. This won't put us in the top echelon, folks.