It's not like it hasn't been pointed out in this thread.

 

If someone thinks criticism of Stoops is out of control in this thread, they'll love this post:

 

I thought Ohio looked better getting torched by Louisville than Kentucky did against Western. Ohio looked overmatched, but Kentucky looked overwhelmed. There's a difference. I had difficulty discerning what UK was trying to accomplish at times, on both sides of the ball. On defense, they looked not just timid but actually afraid of WKU's playmakers, and they struggled to adjust to the conditions in the game. Bottom line, they looked poorly coached to me.

 

To be cliche, Stoops has proven he can recruit the Jimmies and Joes, but after one game I don't see any proof that what he did at FSU had anything to do with his X's and O's.

 

I have said since day one that Stoops' defensive reputation is overrated but I was called the disgruntled FSU fan. The proof is in the pudding. The man is 46 and this is his first head coaching job for a reason.

I guess we have different definitions of ridiculous, but I guess it wouldn't be a message board without some of those posts.

 

Manhandled is an interesting adjective for a nine point loss. UK was out coached and less prepared, I don't think that warrants the title of manhandled.

 

It was clear after both team's first possession who the better team was and who was going to win. WKU should have beaten them worse.

I guess we have different definitions of ridiculous, but I guess it wouldn't be a message board without some of those posts.

 

Manhandled is an interesting adjective for a nine point loss. UK was out coached and less prepared, I don't think that warrants the title of manhandled.

When a team gets whipped up front, they routinely get described as manhandled.

Why is not valid? Because you disagree? That's rich. :lol:

 

 

WKU lost the turnover battle. They had 2. UK had 1. WKU had a bad penalty that awarded UK a first down on a drive they scored on. WKU was 2-10 on 3rd down.

 

 

Yeah, that's A game football right there.

 

WKU had a much larger time of possession, and were least penalized. Which is what I was saying how WKU has a new coach, yes, but Petrino has been around the block a few times. Had a good game plan, and it got them the W.

WKU had a much larger time of possession, and were least penalized. Which is what I was saying how WKU has a new coach, yes, but Petrino has been around the block a few times. Had a good game plan, and it got them the W.

 

Agreed.

When a team gets whipped up front, they routinely get described as manhandled.

 

So both teams had 216 yds. rushing and one team is described as getting whipped. Interesting.

Petrino and his staff were hands down more prepared and better last night. It's WKU he didn't take over a BCS program.

I would agree with that assessment, but what does that to do with changing roles? Are you changing the argument?

 

You said "Petrino would have done more with UK tonight if the roles were reversed." If the roles were reversed Petrino would have been coaching a BCS program.

 

I'll rephrase. Petrino has never taken over a BCS program in as much disarray as UK. There is no evidence he would have done better with this team.

I would agree with that assessment, but what does that to do with changing roles? Are you changing the argument?

 

You said "Petrino would have done more with UK tonight if the roles were reversed." If the roles were reversed Petrino would have been coaching a BCS program.

 

I'll rephrase. Petrino has never taken over a BCS program in as much disarray as UK. There is no evidence he would have done better with this team.

 

I look at it this way: Petrino should be a better SEC head coach than Stoops. Stoops is still learning (so is the staff). This was his first game as a Head Coach. Petrino was the head coach in many Louisville/Kentucky games, and may SEC games as well. I'm not surprised that his strategy, play-calling, and overall game plan was superior to ours.

 

Good point on the "Petrino coaching a BCS program" arguments.

 

I think Rich Brooks is my favorite UK coach (i.e., coaches in my lifetime), but he had a bad record against Petrino for a reason; regardless; this game wasn't as bad as the UK-Ohio at home in 2003.

During the game I spent time watching the UK coaching staff. The one thing that stuck out to me was Coach Stoops and his constant back and forth between his cordinators. He was at the hip of his Cordiantors all night long. Not sure what he was adding to the offense talk, but just a little advice for him. Stay away from your cordinators and let them coach. Your OC needs to get in a groove, not sure he cant do that with you in the way.

 

Speaking from personal experience?

So both teams had 216 yds. rushing and one team is described as getting whipped. Interesting.

 

UK also had two big plays of 50+ yards if I remember... Kinda skews those numbers a bit.

UK also had two big plays of 50+ yards if I remember... Kinda skews those numbers a bit.

 

So long plays shouldn't count?

So long plays shouldn't count?

 

Of course they do... But the argument was that since the rushing yards were similar, UK couldn't have been manhandled up front. If two plays result in 100 yards rushing, does that mean they weren't man handled the other 60 or 70 plays?

Of course they do... But the argument was that since the rushing yards were similar, UK couldn't have been manhandled up front. If two plays result in 100 yards rushing, does that mean they weren't man handled the other 60 or 70 plays?

 

Just trying to present some facts. On to Miami!! Go Cats!

Of course they do... But the argument was that since the rushing yards were similar, UK couldn't have been manhandled up front. If two plays result in 100 yards rushing, does that mean they weren't man handled the other 60 or 70 plays?

 

OK. You take out their longest plays, 49 & 50 yards, and they rush for 117 yards on 30 carries for 3.9 avg. Take out WKU's too longest, 20 & 21 yards, and they rush for 175 yards on 39 carries for 4.5 avg. Does that really change things that much? Fact is big plays are part of the game. It would be different if UK rushed for 150 total with the 2 plays accounting for 99 yards. But that isn't the case. You can throw out if's all day, fact is WKU won pretty much all phases of the game, except turnovers, and they won the game.

 

No one disagrees WKU was the better team. It was obvious from the first 2 series. Not sure why anyone is shocked by that. They had the best 2-3 offensive players and at least the best player on defense if not the top few defensive players. That said, even after dominating UK and as bad as UK played, they still had a chance to at least tie the game. IMO WKU has some work to do as well.