Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Or maybe the depth wasn't there to hold up against a back loaded schedule. In 2014 we went 8 straight weeks in the SEC without a bye weekWell coached teams improve during the season, they fall off more than any program that I've ever seen. The talent may/may not be there, the coaching is just really bad.
The first three of those games were pitiful: Vandy, Louisiana-Monroe, and USCjr. But why let facts stand in the way, eh?Or maybe the depth wasn't there to hold up against a back loaded schedule. In 2014 we went 8 straight weeks in the SEC without a bye week
Or maybe the depth wasn't there to hold up against a back loaded schedule. In 2014 we went 8 straight weeks in the SEC without a bye week
Yeah that's it. Lol!
Rick P. Once said, excuses are a sign of weakness. No depth, Jokers players, curse of Bear, now I remember why UK is commonly known as excuse university.Or maybe the depth wasn't there to hold up against a back loaded schedule. In 2014 we went 8 straight weeks in the SEC without a bye week
Is it a coincidence that when we played them early in the season the UK schedule was front loaded, and now it's back loaded?UK's schedule is "back loaded" again so all the excuses are in place!
I'm expecting to see posts on the UK board this year: "Alright, we're 3-5. Austin Peay is a given. All we have to do is beat 2 of: Georgia, Tennessee, or Louisville to go to a Bowl. These are all winnable games!!!"
Tell them Catfan- and if you look at the results of that murderers row Stoops was still able to get the team up enough during that streak to lose by only 5 TD's each to Tennessee, Georgia & LSU. Not many teams would be able to stay within 40 of those powerhouses.Or maybe the depth wasn't there to hold up against a back loaded schedule. In 2014 we went 8 straight weeks in the SEC without a bye week
Saban wanted Big Matt bad. I just hope he doesn't go pro after this year.Star system is so flawed in football. Kentucky gets two 5 star lineman. One on the defensive line and one on the offensive front. You put those two boys in the Florida system, they are a 3 star at best. Elam would have been a high 2 MAYBE!!!
I love this guy!!Saban wanted Big Matt bad. I just hope he doesn't go pro after this year.
The gap is closing.UK's classes during Stoops' run have averaged 3.3652548 stars while ours have averaged only 3.3652547 stars. They're totally out recruiting us.
Strong played ALOT of true freshmen here, he also went to bowl games every year.As Strongtino pointed out, UofL has done a better job of filling its needs with exceptional transfers (more so than UK which has seen the light and is ramping up its efforts in this regard). The other thing that gets missed is that UofL typically redshirts most of its Freshman, which allows them to get better before they hit the field. Whereas UK has been playing many Freshman from the get go (which is part of its recruiting strategy to land them).
So, yes, there is no doubt that Stoops has done a good job recruiting although it often seems to be based more upon star rankings than team needs, and he hasn't managed his recruits to make them as successful as the star rankings might indicate. In all candor, he would have been better off taking some additional losses the first two years and developing his players as well as taking lesser ranked recruits that fill specific needs. It does seem like he sacrificed long-term success for short term gains with regard to many recruits.
So the gist is that there is a difference between the two schools in strategy that has resulted in more success for UofL recruits than UK recruits (so far).
I don't think Stoops has beaten any team that didn't have a losing record, but that's how those guys think.Additional losses? That first year he was 2-10. Where do you clowns come up with this stuff! The next yr you didn't beat anyone with a pulse. Exactly what "additional losses" should he have taken?
UofL was starting 8 freshman on Offense at times last year. That kind of blows your theory out the door.As Strongtino pointed out, UofL has done a better job of filling its needs with exceptional transfers (more so than UK which has seen the light and is ramping up its efforts in this regard). The other thing that gets missed is that UofL typically redshirts most of its Freshman, which allows them to get better before they hit the field. Whereas UK has been playing many Freshman from the get go (which is part of its recruiting strategy to land them).
So, yes, there is no doubt that Stoops has done a good job recruiting although it often seems to be based more upon star rankings than team needs, and he hasn't managed his recruits to make them as successful as the star rankings might indicate. In all candor, he would have been better off taking some additional losses the first two years and developing his players as well as taking lesser ranked recruits that fill specific needs. It does seem like he sacrificed long-term success for short term gains with regard to many recruits.
So the gist is that there is a difference between the two schools in strategy that has resulted in more success for UofL recruits than UK recruits (so far).
I don't see why he needs to redshirt these guys at all. Most 5.6574 star players are gone to the NFL after 3 years. At the end of this year don't be surprised if you see Boom, Drew and Big Matt all putting there names in the draft.Additional losses? That first year he was 2-10. Where do you clowns come up with this stuff! The next yr you didn't beat anyone with a pulse. Exactly what "additional losses" should he have taken?
You mean Big Matt putting in his name for a draft beer.I don't see why he needs to redshirt these guys at all. Most 5.6574 star players are gone to the NFL after 3 years. At the end of this year don't be surprised if you see Boom, Drew and Big Matt all putting there names in the draft.