DJ Elliot

[screwduke]

Just asking a question. IF the defense is not improved or somehow worse (though doubtful) could his job be in jeapordy after this coming year?

The talent is certainly better now, but if we constantly see players out of position again this year, and making the same silly mistakes, and just flat out playing bad, what does that mean for Elliot?

 

[ctroberts1024]

I don't know how much play calling Eliot actually does. It seems like Stoops makes a lot of the calls. That said, it seemed like we did a good job of putting guys in the right position last year, they just didn't make plays. That doesn't fall on the coaching.

 

[vhcat70]

So if the D is significantly improved this year should he get a promotion or seek a better job? Why the hell do the questions always have to be so negative?

 

[DaBossIsBack]

This is Stoops' defense. Eliot is highly involved, but it's Stoops running the show. So..no. If the defense improves or regresses it will be more of a reflection of Stoops than Eliot.

 

[UKWinsAgainYep]

they were in good position mostly last season it's just our talent level is so below many teams in the SEC that it was embarrassing. By the last half of the season, our guys were exhausted and RBs were running right through our tackles.

Stoops knows this and is trying to recruit us out of this mess and build some SEC depth. Eliot is not working with much to this point. UK is behind other SEC teams in talent, it's that simple. Our corners and DBs were awful at times last season just because many of them are not SEC level talent-thanks to Joker. Stamps was one of the only exceptions in the secondary.

 

[OFortuna]

This is Stoops' defense. Eliot is highly involved, but it's Stoops running the show. So..no. If the defense improves or regresses it will be more of a reflection of Stoops than Eliot.

Their relationship seems to mirror Dawson-Holgerson on the other side of the ball. At some point Eliot, like Dawson, may decide he wants to function more on his own so that the defense is truly "his," and move on; right now he is in a somewhat protected spot in his first DC position.

 

[robo222]

Best post of the thread.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

At some point, Eliot will have to leave to make his name outside of Stoops' shadow if he wants to be an HC some day. If that happened next year, I could see Buh stepping up as DC. I do not see this as far-fetched, as the defense could take a substantial jump this next year. I think Stoops will in the future hire more position coaches who have coordinator potential.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

I think Eliot will be with Stoops for a while.

 

[Blue Decade]

Just asking a question. IF the defense is not improved or somehow worse (though doubtful) could his job be in jeapordy after this coming year?

No. Most of the upperclassmen are still JP recruited players. Eliot was just given a raise. The honeymoon is over, but most members of the coaching staff are safe for the time being. A year from now, you will probably be asking what we need to do to keep them in Lexington.

 

[screwduke]

No. Most of the upperclassmen are still JP recruited players. Eliot was just given a raise. The honeymoon is over, but most members of the coaching staff are safe for the time being. A year from now, you will probably be asking what we need to do to keep them in Lexington.

Yep you're probably right.

I wasn't trying to be negative by this thread, but good post BD.

 

[RV2]

While I expect the D to improve this year let's keep in mind that the coaches are also making the transition from a base 4-3 to a base 3-4 and some trial and error will still occur until that's fully implemented.

 

[ctroberts1024]

Speaking of the 4-3 to 3-4. I watched the games from last year and it seemed like pretty early on, maybe Ohio or Vandy, we were predominantly a 3-4 except maybe the LSU game. I kind of look at last year as the transition year and this year we should be adapted to it.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

I think four upperclassmen on defense will be Stoops' recruits (Flannigan, Lewis, Johnson and Stamps). Bell and Miggins will be juniors. Forrest, Tiller, Quinn, and Huegs are Joker recruits. This defense will be dominated by Stoops' guys this year.

 

[TBCat]

The issues I saw with our defense last year was more talent related than coaching. I don't think any reasonable person is going to fault Stoops or Eliot at this stage. Defense is also the hardest to fix in the short term because it is more dependent on improving athleticism than offense is. It will probably get better next year but we won't seen any measurable gains until year 4 or 5. Until then we may have to win games on offense.

 

[WildCard]

Just asking a question. IF the defense is not improved or somehow worse (though doubtful) could his job be in jeapordy after this coming year?

The talent is certainly better now, but if we constantly see players out of position again this year, and making the same silly mistakes, and just flat out playing bad, what does that mean for Elliot?

Well, since CMS presumably has considerable "ownership" in the defense, it is hard to even speculate on an answer to that question.

Regardless, for UK to move forward, the defense must improve. While not necessarily the best metric of overall defensive performance, "points allowed per game" is the most important defensive stat contributing to the final ultimate stat, wins and losses. UK was #93 (32.7) in points allowed in 2013 and #96 (32.8) in 2014.

As an example of "how" scoring defense affects the W/L record, consider SC the past 2 years. In 2013 SC was 11-2. The Chickens scored 31.1 PPG and yielded 21.2. In 2014 they averaged 31.9 PPG but gave up 32.1 and had a 7-6 record.

As others have noted defensive performance is more about talent on the field than scheming. And I am talking about sheer athletic talent, not so much "experience". Experience may let a guy play "smarter" but it won't make him "bigger, stronger, faster". On offense, to some extent, you can "coach away" from your weak spots. Not so on defense; the offense will find those weak spots and beat you. And, FWIW, by the end of last year UK was predominantly a 3-4 team. They actually rolled out the 3-4 look in the UofL game in 2013 and used it more each week. If there was a 3-4 "transition" year it was last year.

Peace

 

[jnewc2]

So if the D is significantly improved this year should he get a promotion or seek a better job? Why the hell do the questions always have to be so negative?

I know many times it seems like this board is filled with a lot of negative material, but do you know why that is? It's because two years ago we won two games. It's because the year after that we won two games. It's because last year we started the season 5-1 and ended the season at 5-7 while giving up 7 touchdowns/game over the last 6 games of the season and having some of the worst defensive performances in the history of Kentucky football.

When you have a defense that gave up 43 points per game (basically 7 touchdowns a game) over the last 6 games of the season, it's not called being negative, it's called being realistic and fans worrying about what happens if we don't improve in areas where we struggled.

It's not like we went 7-5 or 8-4 and our fans are just wanting something to complain about or knit-pick.

I don't always agree with particular criticisms, but after the way we played last year, I completely understand people having criticisms and questions about areas like our ST, O-line and defense (and defensive coordinator).

It's not like people are on here searching and digging for reasons to be negative and criticize and pulling things out of thin air. Our fans have legitimate reason for criticism at this point in Stoops' tenure.

Now if we had just went 7-5 and people were on here hammering the coaching staff I'd be right there with you, but when the defense got thrashed like it did the last 6 games and you have a guy as DC who is a coordinator for the first time in his life (and has appeared to be completely in over his head at times during his first stint as a coordinator) it's completley fair game to question and criticize.

People are always on here asking "why are people so negative?" like we just came off of some type of ultra-successful season or something.

When a team plays poorly it's completley legitimate to criticize. If anything, when a team plays really poorly it's the people who are being overly positive and saying nothing but good things that are the ones who deserve to be called out.

When things are good they're good and deserve praise. When things are bad they're bad and deserve criticism. Right now (if we're being completley honest with ourselves and leaving our blue-tinted glasses at the door) Kentucky football is in the latter category.

I don't like unfounded criticism (say Patrick Towles for instance) but when it's justified (aka giving up 7 touchdowns a game and having historically bad defensive performances time after time after time) all the while working with two of the best defensive ends in the nation last year yet not being able to get any pressure on the quarterback at all many times, asking a question or two about a guy in DJ Eliot (who had never been anything more than a position coach before stepping on UK's campus) is completely justified.

 

[Poetax]

Just asking a question. IF the defense is not improved or somehow worse (though doubtful) could his job be in jeapordy after this coming year?

The talent is certainly better now, but if we constantly see players out of position again this year, and making the same silly mistakes, and just flat out playing bad, what does that mean for Elliot?

When you see senior and junior starters on defense and the problems still exist and we still go 5-7, you may have a point but until you allow this staff the time to fill the god awful roster that they inherited I think your post is a little premature.

 

[THE_OAK]

I know many times it seems like this board is filled with a lot of negative material, but do you know why that is? It's because two years ago we won two games. It's because the year after that we won two games. It's because last year we started the season 5-1 and ended the season at 5-7 while giving up 7 touchdowns/game over the last 6 games of the season and having some of the worst defensive performances in the history of Kentucky football.

When you have a defense that gave up 43 points per game (basically 7 touchdowns a game) over the last 6 games of the season, it's not called being negative, it's called being realistic and fans worrying about what happens if we don't improve in areas where we struggled.

It's not like we went 7-5 or 8-4 and our fans are just wanting something to complain about or knit-pick.

I don't always agree with particular criticisms, but after the way we played last year, I completely understand people having criticisms and questions about areas like our ST, O-line and defense (and defensive coordinator).

It's not like people are on here searching and digging for reasons to be negative and criticize and pulling things out of thin air. Our fans have legitimate reason for criticism at this point in Stoops' tenure.

Now if we had just went 7-5 and people were on here hammering the coaching staff I'd be right there with you, but when the defense got thrashed like it did the last 6 games and you have a guy as DC who is a coordinator for the first time in his life (and has appeared to be completely in over his head at times during his first stint as a coordinator) it's completley fair game to question and criticize.

People are always on here asking "why are people so negative?" like we just came off of some type of ultra-successful season or something.

When a team plays poorly it's completley legitimate to criticize. If anything, when a team plays really poorly it's the people who are being overly positive and saying nothing but good things that are the ones who deserve to be called out.

When things are good they're good and deserve praise. When things are bad they're bad and deserve criticism. Right now (if we're being completley honest with ourselves and leaving our blue-tinted glasses at the door) Kentucky football is in the latter category.

I don't like unfounded criticism (say Patrick Towles for instance) but when it's justified (aka giving up 7 touchdowns a game and having historically bad defensive performances time after time after time) all the while working with two of the best defensive ends in the nation last year yet not being able to get any pressure on the quarterback at all many times, asking a question or two about a guy in DJ Eliot (who had never been anything more than a position coach before stepping on UK's campus) is completely justified.

Going 3 and out a million times a game has no effect on defense either does it? When were 5-1, our offense was actually moving the ball and putting up points, then it decided to start sucking and then the blowouts happened. Take a team with very little depth on defense and add an offense that's constantly going 3 and out and you have a recipe for a defense that's going to give up a lot of yardage/points. But I don't expect you to understand that.

 

[Levibooty]

Oak's post is the best of this thread. Football teams needs both offense and defense to play well in order to be a good team. When the defense hands the offense the ball consistently with turnovers or short drives ending with punts the offense gets lots of chances. When the offense cannot move the ball and constantly keeps the defense on the field the defense gets worn out. This doesn't even take into account ST play and how it can affect a defense. Defense's with little depth that are forced to stay on the field will be beaten down consistently.

 

[UK Cats Rock]

Yes, I also believe Eliot will be with Stoops for a while as well. He's getting mentored by one of the best, so why would he want to take off for another job unless it's an HC? I think we're going to have a pretty nice looking once the depth is established. Just taking some time......

 

[Bigbluediddy63]

When a team plays poorly it's completley legitimate to criticize. If anything, when a team plays really poorly it's the people who are being overly positive and saying nothing but good things that are the ones who deserve to be called out.

Thank you sir! This staff hasn't shown that they can coach jack squat yet. Our defense was horrendous and got worse as the year went on. The coaches have to shoulder some of the blame. Honestly, as disgusting as it was to watch us get clobbered in the last 6 games to the point we weren't even competitive, save the U of L game, if this staff doesn't win at least 7 or 8 games this year with as many home games they have in year three then I have lost faith in their on the field and preparation coaching ability. I pretty much already have, but i'm giving them this year to show me something and giving them the benefit of the doubt because of all the excuses we have heard over and over again from them and the blowhard's.

 

[CATFANFOLIFE87]

We have some ignorant fans. It's hard to even read some of this crap and not get a little worked up at the lack of knowledge of the game and understanding of what it takes to build a program. I enjoy Grumpy posting over here because as a football junky from an area that knows big boy football he gets it. Some of you could learn a lot from him.

BigBlueDiddy.. You say we were crap on defense the second half of the season save the UL game. The UL game was the only game in the last 6 where we were remotely healthy coming off of a bye week. See what kind of difference that made? We went 8 straight weeks in the SEC without a bye week. We were barely able to field a team to practice. We had guys in boots and slings all week and playing on Saturday. The multiple offseason surgeries our players had? Those were injuries they were playing through just to give us a chance. We had a sputtering offense, no depth, riddled with injuries, and starters that should've been playing in the OVC. If you've already given up on these coaches what kind of fan are you?

jnewc2 doesn't understand how many factors affect the effectiveness of an offense, defense, or special teams. He usually dumbs everything down to a single number that he believes tells the whole story. The special teams were horrendous because our depth was lacking so badly the guys we had to use wouldn't play on the scout team for the top SEC schools. As our depth improves the quality of athlete that we put on the special teams will too. That's how it works. There are no magical play calls that take freshmen and walkons and make them a great special teams unit. Defensively until we get corners that could hold a SEC jockstrap we are going to have games where we get exposed deep for TDs. Until our depth is such that we can sub players in and out they'll be too tired to tackle guys with fresh legs in the fourth quarter. Until our special teams improve the defense will be backed up to a short field. When our offense is able to consistently sustain drives our defense will catch their breath long enough to make stops.

There is more that goes into the success of any unit in football than what you all are considering. The complaining you're doing is lazy and lacks understanding. Our coaches put our guys in the right place to make plays a lot last year and we were either too small, too slow, too tired, or too injured to make the play. This year that should start to change but if you're expecting a 180 degree turnaround you'll be here in the fall making the same claims you are now

 

[Levibooty]

CATFANFORLIFE87

This should be required reading for UK fans on this board. I'm convinced some of our "most knowledgeable" posters have never played organized football that does not take place on their monitors.

 

[WildCard]

When you see senior and junior starters on defense and the problems still exist and we still go 5-7, you may have a point but until you allow this staff the time to fill the god awful roster that they inherited I think your post is a little premature.

Looking at the 2014 UofL game notes I see that 8 defenders had started all previous 11 games and all 8 were Juniors or Seniors. Not Stoops' upperclassmen but upperclassmen nonetheless. Stoops certainly deserves time to get "his guys" in place. But, in all fairness, he inherited no worse of a roster mess than all UK coaches since John Ray (with the exception of Bill Curry and Joker Phillips).

Going 3 and out a million times a game has no effect on defense either does it? When were 5-1, our offense was actually moving the ball and putting up points, then it decided to start sucking and then the blowouts happened. Take a team with very little depth on defense and add an offense that's constantly going 3 and out and you have a recipe for a defense that's going to give up a lot of yardage/points. But I don't expect you to understand that.

UK's first 6 opponents were a combined 31-39 and 5 of the games were in Lexington. UK's last 6 opponents (5 of which finished in the Top 25) were a combined 55-24 and 4 of those games were on the road. Furthermore, only MSU was ranked worse than 42nd in Total Defense. That is about as back end loaded of a schedule as you will ever see and quite likely the reason the offense decided to "start sucking".

Peace

 

[Bigbluediddy63]

Honestly, the U of L game was an anomaly, yes we may have had a bye week, but to not win that game I blame on the coaches, flat out. After all of the turnover opportunities we had and hurting their starting QB, I have honestly never seen a team with that many opportunities lose a game like that. Then their third string QB comes in and tears us to shreds, all that means is that our coaches didn't prepare the defense fully, poor coaching and gutless play calling along with execution. We should have been up 21 to nothing and more right off the bat. And anyone that actually did play organized football (played 9 years) knows that you don't make excuses for playing poorly or losing games. No excuses.

 

[Bigbluediddy63]

UK's first 6 opponents were a combined 31-39 and 5 of the games were in Lexington. UK's last 6 opponents (5 of which finished in the Top 25) were a combined 55-24 and 4 of those games were on the road. Furthermore, only MSU was ranked worse than 42nd in Total Defense. That is about as back end loaded of a schedule as you will ever see and quite likely the reason the offense decided to "start sucking".

Alot of it had to do with the fact that at the beginning of the season with a new starting QB, no one has much film on you or what you are trying to do, so by the end of the season, teams were able to see our tendencies and adjust accordingly. Tendencies like the fact our QB would stare down his first receiver and if he wasn't open take off running.

 

[CATFANFOLIFE87]

Honestly, the U of L game was an anomaly, yes we may have had a bye week, but to not win that game I blame on the coaches, flat out. After all of the turnover opportunities we had and hurting their starting QB, I have honestly never seen a team with that many opportunities lose a game like that. Then their third string QB comes in and tears us to shreds, all that means is that our coaches didn't prepare the defense fully, poor coaching and gutless play calling along with execution. We should have been up 21 to nothing and more right off the bat. And anyone that actually did play organized football (played 9 years) knows that you don't make excuses for playing poorly or losing games. No excuses.

Towles had a couple chances to win the game at the end and came up empty. McWilson makes the interception and it's over. UL is likely to have around 11 draft picks to our two and we were on their field. They had more talent last year and we should have stole one. That was because of coaching. If Bonnafon isn't injured we win that game going away. Reggie didn't have the arm to take advantage of the huge mismatch they had with Parker on our small corner. What'd Parker have 180 yards receiving? No one else really did anything. We pretty well shut down their run game and outrushed them. Something like 14 of the past 15 years the team that ran the ball more effectively won. The game plan worked and gave us a chance to win a game that were were a 2 TD dog in. All we had to do was make a couple of individual plays and that goes back to recruiting depth and having experienced talent. When your best players are freshmen and sophomores you're fighting an uphill battle against a team that has more talent.

The balance of power shifts this year. I went to their spring game and I can tell you now we have more depth than they do. We are better at WR, QB, OL, RB, and DB. DL/LB may be a push but we'll find out. Game is at home we better win this one

 

[Poetax]

Looking at the 2014 UofL game notes I see that 8 defenders had started all previous 11 games and all 8 were Juniors or Seniors. Not Stoops' upperclassmen but upperclassmen nonetheless. Stoops certainly deserves time to get "his guys" in place. But, in all fairness, he inherited no worse of a roster mess than all UK coaches since John Ray (with the exception of Bill Curry and Joker Phillips).

Yeah, I am hoping that the juniors and seniors that Stoops has brought in are more talented then the ones that have come from past coaching staffs. And I won't disagree that others have inherited god awful rosters in the past too.

 

[Levibooty]

Incredible! Reminds me of the post that was claiming Parker was just an ordinary receiver.

 

[Blue Decade]

While I expect the D to improve this year let's keep in mind that the coaches are also making the transition from a base 4-3 to a base 3-4 and some trial and error will still occur until that's fully implemented.

Valid point. Coach Buh helps with the transition. Miggins and Bell were signed to play in the 3-4. A lot of defenders are learning new roles, but 3-4 suits the personnel on hand pretty well.

 

[Blue Decade]

Towles had a couple chances to win the game at the end and came up empty. McWilson makes the interception and it's over. UL is likely to have around 11 draft picks to our two and we were on their field. They had more talent last year and we should have stole one. That was because of coaching. If Bonnafon isn't injured we win that game going away. Reggie didn't have the arm to take advantage of the huge mismatch they had with Parker on our small corner. What'd Parker have 180 yards receiving? No one else really did anything. We pretty well shut down their run game and outrushed them. Something like 14 of the past 15 years the team that ran the ball more effectively won. The game plan worked and gave us a chance to win a game that were were a 2 TD dog in. All we had to do was make a couple of individual plays and that goes back to recruiting depth and having experienced talent. When your best players are freshmen and sophomores you're fighting an uphill battle against a team that has more talent.

The balance of power shifts this year. I went to their spring game and I can tell you now we have more depth than they do. We are better at WR, QB, OL, RB, and DB. DL/LB may be a push but we'll find out. Game is at home we better win this one

The last time Kentucky won a true road game was 2010, so I take the blame game on this thread with several grains of salt. UL won last year because they were the better team, with the better pash rush, playing at home. Our coaches and players deserve a lot of credit for coming so close to winning that game on the road. I agree with you that we will beat UL in Lexington this year. Towles' learning experiences of 2014 will be put to good use in that game.

 

[Levibooty]

Take Parker out of the game last year and UL gets thumped.

 

[SaguaroCat]

Well, since CMS presumably has considerable "ownership" in the defense, it is hard to even speculate on an answer to that question.

Regardless, for UK to move forward, the defense must improve. While not necessarily the best metric of overall defensive performance, "points allowed per game" is the most important defensive stat contributing to the final ultimate stat, wins and losses. UK was #93 (32.7) in points allowed in 2013 and #96 (32.8) in 2014.

As an example of "how" scoring defense affects the W/L record, consider SC the past 2 years. In 2013 SC was 11-2. The Chickens scored 31.1 PPG and yielded 21.2. In 2014 they averaged 31.9 PPG but gave up 32.1 and had a 7-6 record.

As others have noted defensive performance is more about talent on the field than scheming. And I am talking about sheer athletic talent, not so much "experience". Experience may let a guy play "smarter" but it won't make him "bigger, stronger, faster". On offense, to some extent, you can "coach away" from your weak spots. Not so on defense; the offense will find those weak spots and beat you. And, FWIW, by the end of last year UK was predominantly a 3-4 team. They actually rolled out the 3-4 look in the UofL game in 2013 and used it more each week. If there was a 3-4 "transition" year it was last year.

Peace

Those points per game numbers are not apples to apples. Last year, our special teams gave up six touchdowns. Plus there was a three overtime game that created another thirteen points. Correct for what the defense was responsible for in regulation, to accurately compare the defenses, and it's like 26 points /game to 31. Defense wasn't great, but was still improved. Yards per game stats backs it up. From 91st and 427 yards per game to 75th and 407 yards per game.

 

[WildCard]

Those points per game numbers are not apples to apples. Last year, our special teams gave up six touchdowns. Plus there was a three overtime game that created another thirteen points. Correct for what the defense was responsible for in regulation, to accurately compare the defenses, and it's like 26 points /game to 31. Defense wasn't great, but was still improved. Yards per game stats backs it up. From 91st and 427 yards per game to 75th and 407 yards per game.

Right! And those very reasons are why I said it is not the best metric for "evaluating" defensive performance. However, as an indicator of overall successful play it is quite important. Several years ago I did a little "study" on the common characteristics of good teams ("good" was defined as winning 9 or more games). The most common characteristic among such teams (and by a fairly large margin) was "scoring defense".

Peace

 

[hmt5000]

we had a juco lber who got to campus after training camp started in the fall and a converted wr playing lber for the first time in his life... we had a juco nt making his first appearance in big boy ball and we had a very talented but undersized de on the d-line. if some of you cant see why the run D was so bad last year... then i dont know what to tell you. you put avery williamson on last years team and the numbers drastically improve.

3-4 has to have good lb'er play... has to!! if both lb's improve as much as they did last year and the d-line makes just the average amount of improvement from year to year, then we are gonna be wayyy better. will we be top 20? no.. too hard a schedule for that but i'll bet we look better as a group next year and improve every statistical category. we will be top 40ish by years end and I feel pretty confident about that. db's are what still scare me.... both coverage and coming up in run support.

 

[ukalumni00]

Lot of posts that explains both sides of the coin. In relation to the UofL game, KY played them well mainly because the offense made plays. KY played Miss St well because the offense made plays. KY played FL well because the offense made plays. See a pattern here....

As for the defense, my main criticism of the Uof L game was why KY did not double Parker more. He clearly was the only guy they had that was beating KY in the game. KY's Dline did a good job most of that game. I think UK could have afforded to put an extra man on him more to take that option away from a third string QB whose only ability to make a play was throwing it up to Parker and hoping for the best.

As for the defense in general, the secondary was far from SEC. You had maybe two guys (McWilson and Stamps) who were SEC with McWilson still trying to find his way and Stamps who was banged up and playing his first year of D1 football. The starting upperclass corners just are not SEC and it showed. Then you add a very thin, inexperienced, and not extremely talented lber core. Flannigan will shine this coming season but last year he stepped on the field in August with the weight of the defense on his shoulders to perform. You just can't expect a JUCO with no time on campus and in the program to do that unless they are just an elite special player. The DE's were the bright spot, but many times Smith was invisible during SEC play. JMO, he could not get off the edge against SEC tackles to create any pass rush. Bud was asked to do so much that at times he was put out of position due to necessity. The tackles (Lewis in particular) shined early and faded as the season wore on. Elam was completely out of shape and more of a body taking space. Meant showed signs but believe was hurt.

Point being, great players, depth, and experience makes a lot of coaches look smarter than they really are. Give Kirby Smart/Saban last year's roster and I can promise you they are not working a miracle either. Its not be accident that Stoops with D.J.'s helped turn FSU defense in a vaunted one but they had some talent to work with and all of the advantages of recruiting elite players to come in and turn it around much quicker than at KY. When you can recruit several 5 star dline players in one class it is going to make a significant impact.

Let's not forget the hole Special Teams put the team in several games the second half of the season. Some of the worst ST's play I have ever seen at KY.

I agree with others that this season is sort of a put up shut up time for D.J. and the staff. Reasonable fans do not expect them to win an SEC East title, 9 wins, list goes on. However, I think it is reasonable to expect not to see another 6 game losing streak, several blowouts, tons of yards and points given up, etc. As I have always said, if UK can get a top 5 SEC offense mixed in with a defense that is middle of the pack they can do some damage in the SEC. I think this coming season is the start of that.

 

[Levibooty]

ukalumni00 The explanation I heard as to why we did not double Parker was that would not have let them pressure the QB as much. They felt like it was one or the other. Now you probably will say well why not mix it up a bit and I agree. Still that the main reason we lost was a dropped interception so I can allow for that. We went into the fourth quarter with a five point lead. Fact is some poor decisions by our QB that resulted in two fourth quarter interceptions and that dropped interception was the main reasons I recall for having lost that game.

 

[Blue Decade]

3-4 has to have good lb'er play... has to!! if both lb's improve as much as they did last year and the d-line makes just the average amount of improvement from year to year, then we are gonna be wayyy better. will we be top 20? no.. too hard a schedule for that but i'll bet we look better as a group next year and improve every statistical category. we will be top 40ish by years end and I feel pretty confident about that. db's are what still scare me.... both coverage and coming up in run support.

I believe this transition to 3-4 has been intended by Stoops and Eliot from the beginning. Looking back, Stoops has been trying since he arrived to recruit the right personnel for 3-4 defense. Nose tackles, big defensive ends, long outside linebackers, and physical defensive backs. Some notable samples include Melvin Lewis, Matt Elam, Javon Provitt, Alvonte Bell, Kengera Daniel, Kobie Walker, Josh Allen, Chris Westry, Derrick Baity. All ideal for 3-4. The list is long. I am sure others can be pointed out.

 

[RV2]

I believe this transition to 3-4 has been intended by Stoops and Eliot from the beginning. Looking back, Stoops has been trying since he arrived to recruit the right personnel for 3-4 defense. Nose tackles, big defensive ends, long outside linebackers, and physical defensive backs. Some notable samples include Melvin Lewis, Matt Elam, Javon Provitt, Alvonte Bell, Kengera Daniel, Kobie Walker, Josh Allen, Chris Westry, Derrick Baity. All ideal for 3-4. The list is long. I am sure others can be pointed out.

Yes. If memory serves, during Stoops first year we dabbled with a 3-4 situationally. Big brother Bob at OU began that year in the spring by going to his version of a 3-4 and I have no doubt they had many conversations regarding the conversions.

Last year UK committed much more to the 3-4 and like blue decade has said, they have been recruiting toward that in all the classes they have fully recruited. The Stoops brothers have always been 4-3 guys and there's no doubt there's been a learning curve that began two seasons ago and continues into this season, being just the second full year Mark has committed to the defense. Adding to that is he is really getting to see the guys he recruited beginning to make a move up the depth chart. I look for more even play from what will be a very veteran defense which could be helped by the offense's enhanced ability to move the chains.