Constantly outcoached
- Thread starter Cats78
- Start date
- Status
Don't know if this was brought up and I'm not going to read all pages in this thread, but why was the CMU coach calling TOs so quickly on their last drive of 1st half? It's like he wanted to give us time to score. That was a TERRIBLE coaching decision and took the wind out of their sails when we went to half up one. 4 TOs and they were still behind.
Yes. You don't get to the playoffs losing nearly half of your games. You don't get to the playoffs losing to unranked teams.
Stoops coaches like a big 10 coach. Not necessarily a horrible thing as that style can win games, but will that style take us to the next level in the SEC? Not so sure it will unfortunately.
I said if that team played our schedule in the east they could compete for the playoff and they could have. That team would have beaten every team in the east last year more than likely. They might not have made the playoff but they would have played in a major bowl.
And that team would also beat the brakes off of these current UK teams.
They more than likely would have beaten Georgia last year? You make a fool of yourself with some of these statements.
Pure projection. Teams can only play the competition put before them. '07 lost to a 3-5 SEC S. Carolina and an unranked Miss St by 17 at home. It's a silly argument to try and make because you can never prove your case. In fact Miss St played the most like this year's team and they ran the ball up and down the field. Add that Woodson threw 3 picks and we fumbled 4 times losing 3. That day that team didn't look very well coached.
I was at the game so didn't see that until I watched the replay. I'd say Stoops lack of words to Chris at that time spoke pretty loudly. People have criticized Stoops for getting too upset over calls and now when he clearly keeps his cool but also sends a message by refusing to acknowledge CW at that time he still is criticized?
As I previously said CW's playing time has diminished the last two years. Much of that can be contributed to making bone-head plays.
I think they could have beaten Georgia. I don't think you watched them play at all. It's YOU WHO sounds like an uninformed 15 year old.
The 2007 Kentucky team beat LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, who won the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP, in an era of one of the strongest sec's in memory. They were ranked top 7(?) in the country at one point.
For you too suggest it's laughable that they could beat this years Georgia teams shows how ignorant on this topic you are. And really, you sound like you were too young to even know.
Think they were ranked 8th after the upset--------not ranked again, pretty much went to pieces.
LSU was a TWO LOSS NC, lucky to be there, and we beat them in OT. In 2010 with TWO four stars the "worst coach in history" came within a small break or a missed call of beating the UNDEFEATED NC that had a phenom Heisman winner at QB-------in fact he came within a field goal, 3 points their closest game of the year. Based on that do you think his two SEC win team would beat Georgia this year (the 07 team won 3 SEC games)? He also beat top ten USC and TOBC. And oh, by the way, USC won the SEC east that year.
Based on that one game you are saying that that great offense that averaged LESS than a THREE star on offense would have beat Georgia that could put all four stars on the starting lineup with most of them five stars?
The game is FOOTBALL, WEIRD upsets happen, so yes, that team could have beat this years Georgia team-------just hope you aren't giving up anything and aren't betting a lot on it until it happens.
This is stupid and you are trying to diminish the best UK team in decades while being disingenuous. The SEC was stacked in 2007. Yes for the last time, this east of the last couple of years has been the worst of my lifetime. 2007 Kentucky could play their way to a playoff in this climate with the right schedule, like last years.
Would they actually give them a shot at the playoff spot? Probably not. But could they earn it? Yes.
They lost to better teams than are in this conference right now. Georgia finished the year number TWO that season and we played them tough. Tennessee finished the season 12TH. We played Florida tough and they finished the season 13th. We beat the national champ LSU, handily beat an 8 win Arkansas team on the road, beat Louisville, and blew out all of the cupcakes to the tune of Alabama. We also beat Florida State in the bowl. Not to mention, that MSU “unranked” team finished with 8 wins and a bowl victory. And they beat a ranked Kentucky, ranked Alabama, Ole Miss, and Central Florida late in the year to do it.
Look at that pathetic schedule last year compared to that? Did we knock off the national champions? How many ranked opponents did we beat at years end?
You’re just probably too young to remember the 07 team and you’re simply looking at a schedule from that time that you know nothing about. It’s quite obvious. Or you’re just too thick to get it.
That’s all I’ll say.
Last edited:
He never stops, no matter how far behind he gets.
The 07 team would have beat the modern Georgia team, anything is possible, but lol.
I watched every game they played as well as every game for many years previous to that one. You didn't say possible or could have you said most likely which is absurd. You are overstating the greatness of that team. They accomplished some nice things but they ultimately lacked depth and were inconsistent.
On paper we would definitely say that the '07 team definitely wouldn't have beaten the '07 LSU team. Yet, they did it. Sure, the '07 team might not beat the UGA team of this past year, but that would likely be their only loss and they almost certainly wouldn't have been blown out by anyone. So, maybe they don't go to the playoffs, but they could likely be vying for a spot to be in it with the UGA game being the major obstacle before the SEC title game.
Fact of the matter is that the 2007 team faced a schedule ten times harder than the 2017 team.
It's far from positive that 2007 Uk would have beaten 2017 UK but you guys actually think they most likely would have been 11-1 if Georgia was somehow lucky enough to beat them? It's a waste of time arguing about ridiculous hypotheticals. I doubt you will find anyone outside of a few delusional Kentucky fans who would agree this was a likely scenario.
Last edited:
And lost most of those tough games, 3-5 in the SEC. Hey, most exiting UK team we have had in a long time and I loved the number of players that made a joke of their recruiting rankings, but they were not world beaters-------except for maybe one game at a time.
Well, the 2017 UK team should have won two more games themselves and pissed away both the Florida and Ole Miss games. So, it is very easy to think that the 2007 team, which I think was much better than the 2017 team, would at least have won those two games and would have gone 9-3 in the regular season. Then you have Louisville and Miss. State. Those are definitely not 'gimmes,' but at the very least 07 isn't getting blown out by either team, and I think, at a minimum, they at least split those. So, yes, 10-2 or 11-1 would have very much been a possibility for the 2007 team with the 2017 schedule.
While the records of the two teams were similar... they are no where near actually equal.
Five pages in and I don’t think anyone has actually come up with any ways in which Stoops was out coached in a game his team won by 15 points with a -4 turnover margin.
I’m not satisfied with the quality of team we are five years in, but some people will interpret everything as negative and not grant Stoops as single thing. It’s important to be accurate not just about the quality of team we have but also accurate in diagnosing what the problems are. If you think Stoops was out coached in the CMU game, you aren’t doing the latter.
I’m not satisfied with the quality of team we are five years in, but some people will interpret everything as negative and not grant Stoops as single thing. It’s important to be accurate not just about the quality of team we have but also accurate in diagnosing what the problems are. If you think Stoops was out coached in the CMU game, you aren’t doing the latter.
What started this was a statement saying they most likely would have been undefeated against the SEC which is absurd. Not a possibility mind you but most likely.
They were 3-5 in the SEC because they played an SEC schedule that was much harder than what we faced a year ago. How many ranked SEC teams did UK play last year? 2, and one of them was an overrated Florida team. I mean... 2007 actually faced Arkansas who had Felix Jones and Darren McFadden and they were one of the unranked teams!
I agree that the statement was a bit much. I don't think they would go undefeated, and make the playoff, but they very well could have been a playoff contender going into the game against UGA. Had they won that hypothetical game then they very well could have been in the playoff, which I believe is what was said.
Brooks did more with less against tougher opponents. Stoops did less with more against weaker opponents.
That was a very good team at full strength but they lacked depth and were very depleted by mid season. I don't deny that Brooks was the better coach but that has little meaning to our current situation. I think it would have took a lot of luck and a lot less injuries than what actually occurred in 2007.
I certainly don't think that he was outcoached in terms of strategy. However, I think our team was relatively poorly prepared and at no point in the game really looked like a well oiled machine. I think we did a good job at the line of scrimmage defensively and stopping the run, but that team also had no semblance of a passing game at all, so we could basically load up the box.
I agree that it is hard to say that he was 'outcoached,' but Stoops certainly didn't put my mind at ease in terms of us playing a better brand of football in year 6.
Admittedly, it is hard to say what would happen given that there are too many variables. Still, I think that team faced a much harder schedule than what we did a year ago, and while they won an equal amount of regular season games as a year ago, the win totals are not really equal in quality.
People like myself want us to play better football. We played better football in 2007. I don't think the talent was as good, but we were more disciplined and more prepared for almost every game. I give Stoops credit for improving the talent level, but I think he's met his ceiling and I very much worry that teams like USC and Tennessee and Florida will improve in the near future and we will have trouble getting to the 6 or 7 wins with those teams improving.
So do you actually think there is a group of Uk fans out there that doesn't want to see us player better football.? It is worth noting that '07 had the luxury of some very good in state players at the time that have not necessarily been available to Stoops. What do you think Stoops might have done with an experienced Woodson at his disposal? I think the difference would be huge.
Brooks was probably the better coach but their current numbers are about the same.History will judge them on wins and losses and overall winning percentage. Stoops will have more years at UK than Brooks had,when he is done here his numbers will either be better or worse.Everyone can draw their conclusions at that time.
Well, in some ways Stoops has had a lot of good instate talent, even though a lot of it didn't pan out. He had both Towles and Barker, which were 4 star recruits. I agree that having an above average college quarterback is a key to success, but as a coach you have to be able to get those guys regardless and Stoops hasn't been able to, especially with HS guys.
I agree that all UK fans want us to be the best that we can be. I know that. Still, many of them will be complacent and happy with 7 wins while others, like myself, believe that we see the writing on the wall with Stoops. Those who think like myself only see us getting worse and not getting better under this coaching staff. We would, of course, love to be wrong, but how we have played football in the first 5.1 years of Stoops indicates otherwise.
Towles was here before stoops arrived. He wasn’t a bad qb here but not great either. He was pretty much ran out of town by fans his junior season. Everyone wanting barker, who was not ready at that time.
Barker is hard to blame on stoops. He looked like a great qb the first half of first game his sophomore season. Before a back injury for all purposes did end his football career.
i think you fail to appreciate any of the positives Stoops has produced. Back to back bowls is a notable accomplishment around here. Just saying you got to get it done in recruiting is way too simplistic. We've been trying to get it done for many years around here. If you are expecting the next coach to greatly improve on Stoops recruiting you are most likely in for disappointment. We have a lot of things working against us that will require time and consistent progress to make a dent in.
We should be more like Tennessee or Michigan. Those last several hires have worked out great for them.
I am not blaming Stoops for these guys. I am just saying that the in state talent was there, just like with Woodson. It just didn't develop into what Woodson did, or even close, for whatever reason. I agree with you that Barker could have been a very good one if not for the injury.
I think Stoops actually has had more instate talent than what Brooks did. Unfortunately a lot of it hasn't panned out though, and one difference is that the instate talent doesn't seem to be at the offensive skilled positions as much as it used to be.
Exactly, but some are so sure it is as simple as really wanting to win big badly enough.
Last edited:
I think Stoops has done all right. However, I believe Stoops is benefitting greatly from the fact that the SEC East is at a historical low point, at least during my lifetime. Tennessee and Florida in the 20 years I have watched football have never been lower. UGA was somewhat down before last year. Missouri was down last year from where they have been. USC is better than they were in the 90s, but down from where they were under Spurrier. Vandy is still basically Vandy, but a bit more competitive. I don't think we have really faced a stretch of more favorable schedules in quite a long time, and I don't think we have fully taken advantage.
I just think that Stoops is not putting out teams that are playing quality football. Too many mistakes and not very fundamentally sound. If we were playing high quality football and losing to high quality opponents then I would be encouraged. Instead, were barely beating EKU in overtime and getting blown out by Louisville at home. That isn't encouraging.
In terms of the recruiting, I was referring to Stoops needing to find and develop a QB, or a couple. It has been 6 years and we've yet to find an above average QB. Yes, the level of recruiting has improved and I like that, but it is disheartening that our passing game continues to struggle. That the WRs and QBs have been largely underwhelming. I am not asking for Woodson type numbers, but at least someone we can really rely on to move the ball through the air when needed and keep the linebackers out of the box would be great. We haven't had that under Stoops.
I know it isn't simple. Never said it was. Still, Tennessee, for instance, had Jones on the hot seat despite the fact that he won 9 games two years in a row. They then fired him after he went 4-6 a year ago. Tennessee fans demanded more and their administration is willing to try to meet that demand. At some point UK fans have to do the same. We shouldn't be happy with poor football and bumbling our way to 7 wins. To me, the writing is on the wall with Stoops, and it isn't going to get better.
Brooks did a lot for seven years with less than 4% a year raises and ZERO extra support for football from mitch.
- Status
Similar threads
