Taking Issue with Jack Coffee

[CardLaw]

I respect Jack Coffee. I think he is a fine journalist and usually insightful in his analysis. But his front page article on CSR is beyond wrong-headed.

In essence, he states that but for the interceptions, fumbles, injuries and penalties, UofL would have likely beaten Auburn. It is a ridiculous argument and one that can be made by any losing team after any game in college football. Alabama hosts MTSU this weekend - after the game, I am sure some ten year old MTSU fan will argue that but for Alabama's 500 yards rushing to MTSU's 22, MTSU would have won the game. Of course!! But in this case, Jack misses the stats themselves.

Interceptions? UofL threw one. Auburn had three.

Penalties? Louisville 5 to Auburn's 8.

Louisville had one significant injury (Quick). I don't know Auburn's personnel well enough to know who may have missed meaningful minutes.

Fumbles? UofL one; Auburn zero.

Auburn won the game the same way every game is won - the team who either makes fewer mistakes or takes greater advantage of the other team's mistakes wins . . . 100% of the time.

It is the difference between teams being bad, good, very good and great. Had Louisville not made the mistakes they made, they would be higher on that scale. Had Auburn not taken advantage of them the way they did, they would be lower on that scale. But, at the end of the day, the reality is Auburn is higher on the scale than Louisville. Hence, Auburn won. In football, the better teams win about 90+% of the time. Sometimes it is pretty; sometimes it is brutal. But the outcome is predictable.

Jack, you are better than that.

 

[Otis_Wilson]

I agree with Jack. Half full here. Come back when the Cards are 11-1 or 10-2.

 

[Senore2006]

I agree with Jack. Half full here. Come back when the Cards are 11-1 or 10-2.

I haven't read the article, but I thought Cardlaw diagnosed the game situation pretty well. I was proud as heck for us in the end, so that's something possibly way worthwhile. But the game includes errors.

 

[Cue Card]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and that's what makes this country great. Jack provided his, and Cardlaw countered with his own. My opinion is pretty much a combination of the those two and I am very optimistic going forward.

We needed to have someone step up and take charge at the QB spot. Jackson did that. We needed to see the O-line come together. We saw that in the second half against a quality opponent. What we saw is a glimpse of what's to come.

We are going to be very good.

 

[Senore2006]

I agree without the bullet.

I'm a little overwhelmed with our talent. We got deeper everywhere but the OLine - although I hear there are still good battles there. As I said, the lack of penalties is more than a little thing - it was a small but promising success. You know it got Bobby's and the staff's attention.

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

A lot of games across the country are competitive, with outcomes sometimes not decided until very late in the game.

Teams play "up" and "down" to opponents on a weekly basis.

The key for this team, as well as any other team.... will to be able to grind out the wins they are "supposed" to get, while finding a way to get a game or two that maybe they aren't "supposed" to get.

One of those opportunities they weren't supposed to get has left the building.

 

[CardFan1130]

Auburn had its way with us 3/4 of that game. Had leads of 24-0 and 31-10. I just don't get some of the giddiness as the final score was a bit misleading imo. And we're going the rest if the way apparently with a true Fr QB. Lots of concerns

 

[Knucklehank1]

The only thing I will add is that not all turnovers are the same. Specifically the recovery of a fumble requires little skill other than being the lucky SOB who picks up the oddly rolling oblong ball. It is essentially a fluke play to recover a fumble. To then recover a fumble and then advance the ball 82 yards for a touchdown is a true feat of flukiness. Auburn was the big beneficiary of this fluke, much to the detriment of UofL.

 

[T-Bone74]

I didn't have a problem with Jack's article…I liked it. However I will say that Auburn didn't play it's best game either. I heard someone on local radio call in this morning and say if we played again we would win for sure. Auburn is a good team and if I recall they made some mistakes as well.

All in all it was a pretty good game. Both teams played sloppy and made some stupid errors….unfortunately for us some of our errors ended up in easy scoring opportunities for them. But for some to act like we should have won or would win again (as that caller said this morning) is just being a homer. It was a decent game between what will be two good teams.

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

Auburn had its way with us 3/4 of that game. Had leads of 24-0 and 31-10. I just don't get some of the giddiness as the final score was a bit misleading imo. And we're going the rest if the way apparently with a true Fr QB. Lots of concerns

I don't think the score was misleading.

Auburn didn't light up the scoreboard during that 3/4 of the game you're referencing. They got one gift TD and another very short field for another TD, and kicked a 500 yard FG for 17 of their pts. If they were having their way they would have blown the doors off.

I think the team that deserved to win, won the game. But I am positive they were thankful to run the clock out and get out of there. They had no answer for that Fr QB, and many other teams won't either.

 

[Mike'sMarbles]

I'm not a fan of Coffee's kind of analysis. Games aren't just statistics where you eliminate one play and it means you win. Plays aren't discrete events on a computer simulation where you remove one and the other 100+ plays stay exactly the same. When you take away a play, there is no way to know what would have come after that play. The entire game after the play is changed.

If you take out that fumble that was returned for a touchdown and Louisville retains the ball, they might have still fumbled on the next play. Or 3 plays later. Or Louisville might have scored a touchdown. You just don't know. It didn't happen that way.

One of my pet peeves especially watching NFL analysis is where they constantly pick a stat like, "They are 10-0 every time [player] rushes for 115 yards." If that stat were the reason they won, then the coach could just hand the ball to the runner every time and once he reaches the coveted 115 yards, they can chalk up the win! It just doesn't work that way.

Statistics are the results of a game. They can tell a story but every event relies on events coming before so the story can be deceiving. Especially when you start isolating individual plays out of context of the game.

 

[EasyCard]

I'm not a fan of Coffee's kind of analysis. Games aren't just statistics where you eliminate one play and it means you win. Plays aren't discrete events on a computer simulation where you remove one and the other 100+ plays stay exactly the same. When you take away a play, there is no way to know what would have come after that play. The entire game after the play is changed.

If you take out that fumble that was returned for a touchdown and Louisville retains the ball, they might have still fumbled on the next play. Or 3 plays later. Or Louisville might have scored a touchdown. You just don't know. It didn't happen that way.

One of my pet peeves especially watching NFL analysis is where they constantly pick a stat like, "They are 10-0 every time [player] rushes for 115 yards." If that stat were the reason they won, then the coach could just hand the ball to the runner every time and once he reaches the coveted 115 yards, they can chalk up the win! It just doesn't work that way.

Statistics are the results of a game. They can tell a story but every event relies on events coming before so the story can be deceiving. Especially when you start isolating individual plays out of context of the game.

I respect Jack Coffee. I think he is a fine journalist and usually insightful in his analysis. But his front page article on CSR is beyond wrong-headed.

In essence, he states that but for the interceptions, fumbles, injuries and penalties, UofL would have likely beaten Auburn. It is a ridiculous argument and one that can be made by any losing team after any game in college football. Alabama hosts MTSU this weekend - after the game, I am sure some ten year old MTSU fan will argue that but for Alabama's 500 yards rushing to MTSU's 22, MTSU would have won the game. Of course!! But in this case, Jack misses the stats themselves.

Interceptions? UofL threw one. Auburn had three.

Penalties? Louisville 5 to Auburn's 8.

Louisville had one significant injury (Quick). I don't know Auburn's personnel well enough to know who may have missed meaningful minutes.

Fumbles? UofL one; Auburn zero.

Auburn won the game the same way every game is won - the team who either makes fewer mistakes or takes greater advantage of the other team's mistakes wins . . . 100% of the time.

It is the difference between teams being bad, good, very good and great. Had Louisville not made the mistakes they made, they would be higher on that scale. Had Auburn not taken advantage of them the way they did, they would be lower on that scale. But, at the end of the day, the reality is Auburn is higher on the scale than Louisville. Hence, Auburn won. In football, the better teams win about 90+% of the time. Sometimes it is pretty; sometimes it is brutal. But the outcome is predictable.

Jack, you are better than that.

You lost me with the scale bit but I digress. Are you suggesting all turnovers and penalties are the same? Of course not. A penalty in the red zone on the offense is a heck of a lot more damaging then the middle of the field. A turnover resulting in a TD for the defense is a lot more damaging then an interception in the opponents territory. I interpreted Jack' s article as these specific factors resulted in Louisville's loss, and that Auburns mistakes didn't happen in the same unfortunate forms.

I saw 2 evenly matched teams. Auburn had a devastating Dline that gave them an advantage, but Louisville countered with a QB that worn them down. To suggest Auburn is somehow at a "higher scale" cause they can manipulate when and how their mistakes occur, like fumbles, is ridiculous.

 

[kozmas]

I don't think the score was misleading at all, that was a winnable game for us in the 4th quarter and Auburn knew it. If we would have made one less mistake we could have won that game. That being said I have to give Auburn credit for capitalizing on our mistakes.
That is what good teams does and I wish Auburn the best of luck the rest of the year. I thought their team and their fans were a class act and I would like to see them do well.

 

[American Male]

The FACT of the matter is that ALMIGHTY SEC Auburn COULD NOT STOP Louisville...That is EVIDENCED by Louisville having over 100 more yards of offense...OVER 200 yards EACH HALF...Louisville STOPPED Louisville!!!

Back to Back False Starts by Louisville KILLED a drive and FORCED a FG attempt that was MISSED!!

Two Louisville Turnovers...14 points for Auburn...Auburn scored 17 points on their own!!!

Three Auburn Turnovers...7 points for Louisville...Louisville scored 17 points on their own!!!

UNRANKED Louisville played #6,7,8 Ranked Auburn EVEN...Those are the FACTS!!!

ANYONE that says or thinks OTHERWISE is FULL OF $#IT!!!

 

[Cue Card]

All valid points on your part American Male. The stats are what they are and the cold hard truth is the Cards shot themselves in the foot which cost them points. UA took advantage as all good teams do. UA has a very good football team. I'm convinced UofL will have a very good football team too.

I am very optimistic about the season going forward.

 

[ajgcardman]

I'm super excited because we spent almost the entire 4th quarter Saturday marching the ball up & down the field against them with an offense that was 45% "true" freshmen playing in their first career college football games!! That's 5 of the 11 players (Jackson, Christian,
Peete, Samuel, and Jaylen Smith). And, allegedly, the WR that sat out, Spence, is the best of the bunch.

I agree that the team that won deserved to win. They simply made the biggest play of the game, the 82-yd fumble return, and that play WAS the difference.

Moral victories NO, but being realistic YES! And it's not unrealistic whatsoever to expect measurable & gradual improvement from those 5 freshmen as the season progresses. And those kids are already very good, which makes the prospects of this team moving forward very appealing.

 

[65bird]

I'm with Senore and Cue Card and I'm satisfied that we more than hung with # 6 after errors, which are part of the game. As Senore said in another thread, we could beat them 3 out of 7. With our OL, not bad for year 2 of CBP. The future looks bright and so does this season.

 

[Senore2006]

Actually, I said 3 out of 10, lol. But, frankly, that's OK too at the present time.

 

[65bird]

Miss type by me. Yeah 3 of 10. They'd contain Lamar.

 

[PushupMan]

The FACT of the matter is that ALMIGHTY SEC Auburn COULD NOT STOP Louisville...That is EVIDENCED by Louisville having over 100 more yards of offense...OVER 200 yards EACH HALF...Louisville STOPPED Louisville!!!

Back to Back False Starts by Louisville KILLED a drive and FORCED a FG attempt that was MISSED!!

Two Louisville Turnovers...14 points for Auburn...Auburn scored 17 points on their own!!!

Three Auburn Turnovers...7 points for Louisville...Louisville scored 17 points on their own!!!

UNRANKED Louisville played #6,7,8 Ranked Auburn EVEN...Those are the FACTS!!!

ANYONE that says or thinks OTHERWISE is FULL OF $#IT!!!

Turnovers and big plays off of them are part of the game. We did not play Auburn even. We played them MINUS SEVEN and earned a big FAT "L" for our efforts.

Anyone that thinks otherwise is, as you say "FULL OF $#IT!!!"

Should we be encouraged by our performance in the last 25 minutes of that game? Certainly. But I am telling all UofL fans to proceed with caution, because that team that couldn't block and got manhandled by Auburn for the first 35 minutes was also UofL. Only time will tell which UofL we will see for the rest of the year. My expectations are that we will see a lot of both.

 

[DaytonCard]

I respect Jack Coffee. I think he is a fine journalist and usually insightful in his analysis. But his front page article on CSR is beyond wrong-headed.

In essence, he states that but for the interceptions, fumbles, injuries and penalties, UofL would have likely beaten Auburn. It is a ridiculous argument and one that can be made by any losing team after any game in college football. Alabama hosts MTSU this weekend - after the game, I am sure some ten year old MTSU fan will argue that but for Alabama's 500 yards rushing to MTSU's 22, MTSU would have won the game. Of course!! But in this case, Jack misses the stats themselves.

Interceptions? UofL threw one. Auburn had three.

Penalties? Louisville 5 to Auburn's 8.

Louisville had one significant injury (Quick). I don't know Auburn's personnel well enough to know who may have missed meaningful minutes.

Fumbles? UofL one; Auburn zero.

Auburn won the game the same way every game is won - the team who either makes fewer mistakes or takes greater advantage of the other team's mistakes wins . . . 100% of the time.

It is the difference between teams being bad, good, very good and great. Had Louisville not made the mistakes they made, they would be higher on that scale. Had Auburn not taken advantage of them the way they did, they would be lower on that scale. But, at the end of the day, the reality is Auburn is higher on the scale than Louisville. Hence, Auburn won. In football, the better teams win about 90+% of the time. Sometimes it is pretty; sometimes it is brutal. But the outcome is predictable.

Jack, you are better than that.

I agree with you. I believe that game gives the team it's opportunity to correct the reasons for the loss and move forward. For us fans we need to support the team even though we loss. It appears to me that Jack thinks our fan base has given up on the season, thus the article of "HOPE - IFI?".

 

[wilkie01]

First game and both teams were loaded with young players of equal talent. We just got behind early on. So we in essence beat our self. All you can do is regroup and be ready for Houston. And I bet we are.

 

[WildCard]

I'm super excited because we spent almost the entire 4th quarter Saturday marching the ball up & down the field against them with an offense that was 45% "true" freshmen playing in their first career college football games!! That's 5 of the 11 players (Jackson, Christian,
Peete, Samuel, and Jaylen Smith). And, allegedly, the WR that sat out, Spence, is the best of the bunch.

I agree that the team that won deserved to win. They simply made the biggest play of the game, the 82-yd fumble return, and that play WAS the difference.

Moral victories NO, but being realistic YES! And it's not unrealistic whatsoever to expect measurable & gradual improvement from those 5 freshmen as the season progresses. And those kids are already very good, which makes the prospects of this team moving forward very appealing.

This ^^^.

Non offensive scores can relegate conventional stats dominance meaningless. I am not playing the old iffin' game but there is big difference between being down 10-3 (maybe even 10-7) at half rather than being down 17-0.

Peace

 

[CardFan1130]

Turnovers and big plays off of them are part of the game. We did not play Auburn even. We played them MINUS SEVEN and earned a big FAT "L" for our efforts.

Anyone that thinks otherwise is, as you say "FULL OF $#IT!!!"

Should we be encouraged by our performance in the last 25 minutes of that game? Certainly. But I am telling all UofL fans to proceed with caution, because that team that couldn't block and got manhandled by Auburn for the first 35 minutes was also UofL. Only time will tell which UofL we will see for the rest of the year. My expectations are that we will see a lot of both.

Well said. People like Male sound like delusional UK fans.

 

[wreckcard#22]

While I don't take Mr. Coffee's view point regarding the upside of this loss, I do think there are at least two things we can take away from our performance that influence my pre season prediction of 7 wins, now I predict 8. QB issue is solved (for now) and our D is going to be better than predicted (which is quite a statement).

 

[DerVille]

I've always felt a little put off by Jack Coffee and I really don't care much for him. I'm sure he's nice if you knew him personally but I don't know him personally so I don't really feel much love for him. I haven't really heard much out of him in the last 5 years or so. He used to be on the radio regularly during some Adam Neft afternoon show. He was ok until Kragthorpe came and then once he came he (Coffee) went kind of psycho over this guy. He seemed to love Kragthorpe more than the program. He got way too personally involved with him to where he was willing to see the program burn just so long as his bud didn't lose his job.

More specifically he went psycho on the fans. He kept going off, over and over about these really specific events that the general fan base didn't know about and to be honest we didn't need to know. He publicized these obscure events involving a few people and went on some public vendetta against the common UofL fan, running down UofL fans and acting like the fans were "US" and he was not under the umbrella of the term "UofL fan". His campaign of taking photos of fans to publish and "shame" them because a few people yelled something from behind the bench. What does that have to do with the regular Joe fan, the other 60,000 fans who weren't this group behind the bench? Why did we even need to know about it? That didn't stop him from running down the fans publically. Then we got the 25 reasons Kragthorpe was the right guy for the job. He kind of missed the mark on that,...maybe if he wasn't personally such good friends with him. Lastly they fire Kragthorpe. Finally, it's over. We can move on and try and rebuild the shambles the program was in. How did he handle it? Another public assault on the fans, because some event occurred that no one even knew about or needed to know about. What was it? Someone did the flaming poo prank at his house? Therefore Coffee had to run down the fans publically over some event no one ever knew happened. I'll tell you, I have no idea where Kragthorpe lived, I don't think anyone did. That sounds like some neighborhood kids. But Coffee was buds with him and had to run down the fan base publically (as if Coffee isn't a fan himself) because some neighborhood teen played a prank.

Yeah, I wish he'd just stay quiet, behind the scenes, I don't really need to ever hear from Coffee again. He showed really poor judgment.

 

[CardFan1130]

Our D was manhandled and our QB situation is far from solved. Going to be a great player but he is a true FR and he WILL struggle.

Oh and anyone that defended Kragthorpe is an idiot

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

Our D was manhandled

No they weren't. The Auburn qb produced an abysmal rating in the low 40s and the longest run from scrimmage was 14 yards. The qb averaged an anemic 6.5 yards per pass.

They gave up one play over 20 yards the entire game.

Auburn got 327 total yards - that will probably end up being one of their lower outputs all year.

 

[CardLaw]

I'm not a fan of Coffee's kind of analysis. Games aren't just statistics where you eliminate one play and it means you win. Plays aren't discrete events on a computer simulation where you remove one and the other 100+ plays stay exactly the same. When you take away a play, there is no way to know what would have come after that play. The entire game after the play is changed.

If you take out that fumble that was returned for a touchdown and Louisville retains the ball, they might have still fumbled on the next play. Or 3 plays later. Or Louisville might have scored a touchdown. You just don't know. It didn't happen that way.

One of my pet peeves especially watching NFL analysis is where they constantly pick a stat like, "They are 10-0 every time [player] rushes for 115 yards." If that stat were the reason they won, then the coach could just hand the ball to the runner every time and once he reaches the coveted 115 yards, they can chalk up the win! It just doesn't work that way.

Statistics are the results of a game. They can tell a story but every event relies on events coming before so the story can be deceiving. Especially when you start isolating individual plays out of context of the game.

Exactly!!

I would only add that this applies even if the deciding play is the last play of the game: "Had we not given up that hail mary, we win." No, had you not played the other 59:59 and allowed the other team to be within a hail mary of winning, you win. Period.

 

[CardLaw]

You lost me with the scale bit but I digress. Are you suggesting all turnovers and penalties are the same? Of course not. A penalty in the red zone on the offense is a heck of a lot more damaging then the middle of the field. A turnover resulting in a TD for the defense is a lot more damaging then an interception in the opponents territory. I interpreted Jack' s article as these specific factors resulted in Louisville's loss, and that Auburns mistakes didn't happen in the same unfortunate forms.

I saw 2 evenly matched teams. Auburn had a devastating Dline that gave them an advantage, but Louisville countered with a QB that worn them down. To suggest Auburn is somehow at a "higher scale" cause they can manipulate when and how their mistakes occur, like fumbles, is ridiculous.

Of course not. Not all penalties or TO's are the same. But, it goes to "the scale bit". In theory, you could rank all teams 1 to 127. The higher a team is on that ranking, the less likely they are to commit crucial penalties or TO's. But, that is how they get higher on that scale - they make fewer critical mistakes. Conversely, they get higher on that scale by taking advantage of the other team's mistakes more efficiently.

Also, I do think better teams can in some sense "manipulate" mistakes. The fumble return was fluky (to use another poster's term). But, not entirely. An attacking defense has someone there to scoop it up clean; a less attacking defense may get the recovery, but perhaps not as clean. I remember a coach of mine in Alabama once noted that "good teams get lucky for a reason". Over the years since, I have learned he is right. To get lucky, you have to have someone there to take advantage of the fortuitous bounce - good teams always seem to have that guy there because they are good at rallying to the ball. A lesser team doesn't get that lucky break, because they are less likely to have a guy there when it occurs. It is why they are a lesser team.

 

[BooneCo_Card]

Of course not. Not all penalties or TO's are the same. But, it goes to "the scale bit". In theory, you could rank all teams 1 to 127. The higher a team is on that ranking, the less likely they are to commit crucial penalties or TO's. But, that is how they get higher on that scale - they make fewer critical mistakes. Conversely, they get higher on that scale by taking advantage of the other team's mistakes more efficiently.

Also, I do think better teams can in some sense "manipulate" mistakes. The fumble return was fluky (to use another poster's term). But, not entirely. An attacking defense has someone there to scoop it up clean; a less attacking defense may get the recovery, but perhaps not as clean. I remember a coach of mine in Alabama once noted that "good teams get lucky for a reason". Over the years since, I have learned he is right. To get lucky, you have to have someone there to take advantage of the fortuitous bounce - good teams always seem to have that guy there because they are good at rallying to the ball. A lesser team doesn't get that lucky break, because they are less likely to have a guy there when it occurs. It is why they are a lesser team.

Good teams get lucky for a reason - Amen!

Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. John Wooden

 

[American Male]

Turnovers and big plays off of them are part of the game. We did not play Auburn even. We played them MINUS SEVEN and earned a big FAT "L" for our efforts.

Anyone that thinks otherwise is, as you say "FULL OF $#IT!!!"

Should we be encouraged by our performance in the last 25 minutes of that game? Certainly. But I am telling all UofL fans to proceed with caution, because that team that couldn't block and got manhandled by Auburn for the first 35 minutes was also UofL. Only time will tell which UofL we will see for the rest of the year. My expectations are that we will see a lot of both.

What part of this QUOTE did you NOT Understand!?!?!?

"The FACT of the matter is that ALMIGHTY SEC Auburn COULD NOT STOP Louisville...That is EVIDENCED by Louisville having over 100 more yards of offense...OVER 200 yards EACH HALF...Louisville STOPPED Louisville!!!"

At what point in the game did Auburn STOP Louisville's Offense...Hint...NEVER!!!

Louisville moved the ball on Auburns Defense EVERY Quarter...They were NOT "manhandled"!!!

 

[American Male]

Well said. People like Male sound like delusional UK fans.

I'm still waiting for the screen shots!!!

Provide them or STFU!!!

 

[Rollem Cards]

And I thought all the Summertime infighting was over.

Let me see if I have this figured out from what all the coach's on here think:

1. We played the "alleged" #6 team to 7 pts.
2. Our OL got beat up badly (See #1)
3. Our D is suspect. (See #1)
4. Our running game sucks (see #2 then #1)
5. We had better stats than them (See #1)

So what are us dumb fans supposed to think?

- Is AU over rated? SURELY NOT!!! They're $EC don't you know? There are some on here who worship at the alter of the $EC, and tell us yearly hope good they are. This is not an option. (until we learn differently-and it won't hurt my feelings if AU goes undefeated))

- Are we in better shape than the naysayers think? Impossible. (See 2,3 and 4)

I'd venture it's a combination of the two. And rather than bitch and moan after ONE friggin game (against the ALLEGED #6 team in the country), I'd prefer to like our position.

I'm pretty sure the naysayers are not going to demote AU from their anointed position in the top 10, so ..... see #1.

We will have to see LJ pass the ball effectively to really exploit D's because his run will be contained. IF his arm is as good as we've been led to believe, our offense should get even bigger numbers because they will be a "man short" since someone will have to key on LJ in case he runs. And it will help the OL if the D has to play honest. It worked against AU when RB was in. We moved the ball, but yeah I know we lost.

To the supposed #6 team in the country. By 7

I'll take it right now.

Go Cards! Beat Purdue!

 

[fredburgcard]

After the game an Auburn fan on MARTA told me he thought the Cards outplayed Auburn. I disagreed because there is only one stat that matters - The Final Score. Louisville is beyond bragging about gaining more yards, or causing more turnovers than a quality opponent. Louisville is beyond moral victories. Schools like our neighbors 70 miles to the east can spend their time talking about what might have been if a fumble hadn't bounced one way or if an onside kick had worked. Louisville needs to be concerned only with beating every opponent.

I'm not completely disappointed with the Auburn result. I expected it would be difficult to win a game like that with a young team this early in the season. Now they need to learn from the game, beat Houston, and get ready for ACC play.

 

[Cue Card]

Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. John Wooden

I love that quote from coach Wooden!!

 

[TGING CARD]

Let's look at this in a different light! If we had used a 4 or 5 man defensive front, would we have stopped the auburn rushing attack? If Lamar had played the whole game, would the offense have been anemic in the first half? I know it was the first game, but I was disappointed in the lack of defensive adjustments in the second half to stop the run. Our starting defensive line is good! Double teamed by auburns NFL quality line made them look average. I was not impressed by Jeremy Johnson passing attack.

 

[CardLaw]

I was not impressed by Jeremy Johnson passing attack.

I doubt anyone was. Frankly I came away confused. Two interceptions thrown to defenders standing directly between he and the receiver with no attempt to put it over the defender; a third thrown into triple coverage.

The only thing I can figure is the offense was designed for him to throw to certain spots and the UofL defenders just happened to be in the "wrong" place. Or, more likely, given his limited prior experience, he just freaked out and his brain locked onto a given throw which his eyes could not pull him away from. In any event, all three picks were head-scratchers. We'll see how he develops as the year progresses.

 

[PushupMan]

What part of this QUOTE did you NOT Understand!?!?!?

"The FACT of the matter is that ALMIGHTY SEC Auburn COULD NOT STOP Louisville...That is EVIDENCED by Louisville having over 100 more yards of offense...OVER 200 yards EACH HALF...Louisville STOPPED Louisville!!!"

At what point in the game did Auburn STOP Louisville's Offense...Hint...NEVER!!!

Louisville moved the ball on Auburns Defense EVERY Quarter...They were NOT "manhandled"!!!

If you don't think that Auburn's front four manhandled UofL's offensive line for the first 40 minutes of the game, then I'd seriously have to question whether you watched the UofL-Auburn game.

The reason for the fumble that was returned for a TD was because the Auburn defensive tackle threw our best offensive lineman (Aaron Epps) aside and was tackling Reggie Bonnafon before he could hand off the football. I don't care how good a defensive lineman you are, when the defense is tackling the QB before the handoff, that is some pitiful blocking. And that is the very definition of being manhandled.

That was the most spectacular example of what I am talking about, but hardly the only one.

And as far as our defense is concerned, they competed very well, but even Petrino said he was disappointed that we didn't stop Auburn's running game better than we did.

 

[PORTACARD]

Let's make it simple. If the fumble doesn't occur, we get at least a field goal and they get one less touchdown. That's a ten point swing in a seven point game.