July 30, 200818 yr It's wasy to say it that way, but everyone on Louisville, excluding TE has considerable gametime experience....U of L's offense shouldn't be their achilles' this year. And UK's committee of RB's doesn't, or Lyons, Ford, Bogue, and Drake? Additionally, based on expereince from last season alone Hartwell saw nearly as much time as Cantwell... I agree that UL isn't inexperienced at skill spots, but for a UL fan to say the same about Uk is just as inaccurate.
July 30, 200818 yr I am a realist 6-6 is a worst case but I see UK at least getting one of the swing games if not two. Baring injuries they could win all of them. I'll go with the safe pick and say the Cats go 8-4 and head to Atlanta or Tampa. :lol::lol::lol: These two don't add up my friend.
July 30, 200818 yr How many returning starters in skill positions does UL have on offense for a unit that you said "Will score"? QB Cantwell-no, HB Powell-no, FB Bolen-Yes, WR Long- Yes, WR-Guy no, TE-no..... UK QB Hartline-no, HB Locke-no, FB Connor-yes, WR Lyons-yes, WR Ford-no, TE-no... If we are going by partial starters and production UK has more experience than UL in the skill positions. Cantwell-not last year (but has started some big games) hb-Bolen-yes FB Tronzo-yes Long-yes guy-yes (started for Douglas a few games) (injured) Vaughn, etc. -no TE-no Lyons alone has more production than the UofL corp. However, Bolen produced more than any of the UK hb's. The big difference for Lyons, will be that he is the no.1 now, and not the no. 4 target. A BIG difference.
July 30, 200818 yr Cantwell-not last year (but has started some big games) hb-Bolen-yes FB Tronzo-yes Long-yes guy-yes (started for Douglas a few games) (injured) Vaughn, etc. -no TE-no Lyons alone has more production than the UofL corp. However, Bolen produced more than any of the UK hb's. The big difference for Lyons, will be that he is the no.1 now, and not the no. 4 target. A BIG difference. So partial starters it is: UK QB Hartline- No HB Smith-yes (Started in place of injured Locke and Dixon) HB Dixon- yes (#2 on Depth Chart until Injury, started for Little) HB Locke- yes (Started for injured Little on Dixon) FB Connor- Yes (#1 FB) WR Lyons- Yes (Full-time starter) WR Ford- Yes (Started at #3 receiver when Keenan was injured) TE Bogue- Yes (Started when UK needed a two TE set)
July 30, 200818 yr Lyons alone has more production than the UofL corp. However, Bolen produced more than any of the UK hb's. The big difference for Lyons, will be that he is the no.1 now, and not the no. 4 target. A BIG difference. Ummm..not quite, Stevie Johnson was the #4 target, Dicky was #2 (he had much more yards and catches than Tamme): Locke 94 carries, 536 Yards, 5TD Bolen 88 carries, 465 Yards, 7 TD... more TD's but not as many carries or yards ..and for the sake of arguement: Dixon 72 carries, 422 yards 4 TD Smith 21 carries, 152 yards, 2 TD Powell 24 carries, 206 yards, 2 TD
July 30, 200818 yr Ummm..not quite, Stevie Johnson was the #4 target, Dicky was #2 (he had much more yards and catches than Tamme): Locke 94 carries, 536 Yards, 5TD Bolen 88 carries, 465 Yards, 7 TD... more TD's but not as many carries or yards ..and for the sake of arguement: Dixon 72 carries, 422 yards 4 TD Smith 21 carries, 152 yards, 2 TD Powell 24 carries, 206 yards, 2 TD Looking at the UK offense, I would have to debate Lyons being Woodsons second option. Burton, Tamme, and Johnson all got drafted... let's see where Lyons gets drafted.:walk:
July 30, 200818 yr So partial starters it is: UK QB Hartline- No HB Smith-yes (Started in place of injured Locke and Dixon) HB Dixon- yes (#2 on Depth Chart until Injury, started for Little) HB Locke- yes (Started for injured Little on Dixon) FB Connor- Yes (#1 FB) WR Lyons- Yes (Full-time starter) WR Ford- Yes (Started at #3 receiver when Keenan was injured) TE Bogue- Yes (Started when UK needed a two TE set) Ford is a stretch, and the Bogue thing is :banana:
July 30, 200818 yr Ford is a stretch, and the Bogue thing is :banana: A part-time starter is a part-time starter..... The point I am getting at is neither team has nay advantage when it comes to tangible experience in the offensive skill players... NEITHER TEAM, whatever advantage UL has from Hunter "I only saw real action under Petrino in 2006" Cantwell at QB is quickly offset by the major production of Dicky "They Doubled Keenan, someone has to be open" Lyons. RB's as evident by the stats above are a wash, both teams return very seldomly utilized FB's, and neither team has a TE who has proven they can catch a pass. WASH
July 30, 200818 yr Looking at the UK offense, I would have to debate Lyons being Woodsons second option. Burton, Tamme, and Johnson all got drafted... let's see where Lyons gets drafted.:walk: Here it is by the stats. All within 10 catches of each other. 2007: Burton - 66 catches, 741 yards, 9 TDs Johnson - 61 catches, 1052 yards, 13 TDs Lyons - 56 catches, 655 yards, 7 TDs Tamme - 56 catches, 619 yards, 6 TDs
July 30, 200818 yr A part-time starter is a part-time starter..... The point I am getting at is neither team has nay advantage when it comes to tangible experience in the offensive skill players... NEITHER TEAM, whatever advantage UL has from Hunter "I only saw real action under Petrino in 2006" Cantwell at QB is quickly offset by the major production of Dicky "They Doubled Keenan, someone has to be open" Lyons. RB's as evident by the stats above are a wash, both teams return very seldomly utilized FB's, and neither team has a TE who has proven they can catch a pass. WASH agreed I never said UofL was better off, I just said I wouldn't be overconfident with returning skill players, if I were a UK fan. (I think that is what started this) Either way, both teams have question marks at many key pos.
July 30, 200818 yr Here it is by the stats. All within 10 catches of each other. 2007: Burton - 66 catches, 741 yards, 9 TDs Johnson - 61 catches, 1052 yards, 13 TDs Lyons - 56 catches, 655 yards, 7 TDs Tamme - 56 catches, 619 yards, 6 TDs Burton missed a lot time too. Johnson was the one that surprised me. And the production Tamme provided from the TE spot was very impressive.
July 30, 200818 yr agreed I never said UofL was better off, I just said I wouldn't be overconfident with returning skill players, if I were a UK fan. (I think that is what started this) Either way, both teams have question marks at many key pos. You said that after saying that UL's offense will score points.... if UL's offense will score points then the same has to be said for UK.
July 30, 200818 yr If Uk is as good as you claim in your other post, then they should have no problem with UofL. Heck, UofL was picked 7th in the Big East. This should be a gimmie for the powerful SEC Cats. Trust me Powell and Bolen are both really good. The offense will score. The defense is the ??. Much like UK's offense is a big ?? With one returning skill player coming back on offense, I would not be so confident.:sssh: You did....
July 30, 200818 yr Fact is UK is worlds better than UofL this year. From coaching, to offense to defense to special teams to fans and finally down to the people who put the toilet paper on the rolls in the locker room. UL has zero advantages.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.